The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok One question I've always wondered is this - why do people who don't live in the United States have such a serious interest in the Second Amendment? It's never going to affect you, unless you come here to visit or move here.quote>

Look around you? Don't ordinary Americans take an interest in what's happening in other parts of the world? Like the three Iranian women who the government is about to hang (on hold until the attention fades). They have been sentenced according to the law, and according to the local procedures. Does that mean that people shouldn't care?quote>

Not the same way that everyone goes on about our Constitution and what it says.  For example, no one over here has said a thing about three Iranian women that the government is going to hang.  What's the reason why they are going to do it?  We could make a case that there's a human rights violation going on here depending on why the government wants to hang them or maybe even on the act of hanging.  But this is a human rights violation.  The right to own a gun is not a human rights violation.  They're not comparable.

The Second Amendment, in terms of affecting other people in the world (meaning those outside of America) is on the same level as me getting concerned about the fact that most of Europe follows strong socialist tendencies.  I really don't care.  The European countries are their own separate entities and how they want to run their countries is really none of my business (with exceptions being things like genocide).  If the Germany wants to make homeschooling kids a crime (which they did) then that's there decision to make.  If France wants to make it virtually impossible to legally fire people, that's their prerogative.  If the UK wants a national health care plan, it's up to them and there's no reason why I should be running around telling them that they can't have it.  None of the above three government policies are in any way affecting me, and the respective countries seem to be happy with them for the most part.  Here in the US, we believe in the right to have guns.  This is our prerogative, and unless you live in the US or are going to be visiting, this isn't an issue that affects you.  It's OK to have an opinion on it and disagree with it, but there's no grounds for running around telling us how to run our country.

It's also because the US is a part of the western world, wether they like it or not. We share some common history, common wars and common emigrants/immigrants. The US isn't a remote island in the Pacific.quote>

What does this have to do with anything?  It seems like you're implying that because we have a common history, we should have a common stance on things.  What's wrong with doing things differently?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff

Instead, I argue that the common denominator is in the culture. The least violent places all have homogeneous populations and a very unifying culture. In places where violence is present, you will always find a mix of cultures and values. This is the real birthplace of violence, not firearms. Firearms are just a tool, like arson, stabbings, and homemade bombs.quote>

Hmmm, There's no homogeneous population or culture here, there's a real mix of cultures and values. catalan natives, spanish immigrants, european immigrants, african immigrants, pakistanis and a long etcetera are nearly equally present in the low and middle (in a lower way) class neighborhoods, but the crime and violence rates are ridiculously low.

[deadwoods 542]

I don't have an issue with the 2nd Amendment per-se. I personally think it's being taken out of context by those that want to justify gun ownership.

As many have said, they need guns to protect themselves and that is a sad statement on the risk of living safely in the US. Perhaps this is true; many see the wild west in their living rooms or lecture halls ("I'll shoot them before they shoot me, and just to be sure I'll pack more firepower then they have"). This is not the case in many western cultures. I don't live in fear of someone breaking in to my house and putting a gun in my face. Someone may break in in the middle of the night and steal my VCR. Go ahead, your welcome to it. Why is this level of violence so different in the US to most other western countries?

My concern is the rate of innocent deaths due to inappropriate gun use. It would appear that too many people are getting guns and mis-using them (although one could argue that the only intended use of a gun is to kill), like kids picking up loaded weapons from home and taking them to school to take out a grudge. So what is the answer? How do you stop this happening? Does the NRA have a solution, or would they rather that everyone carried a gun so if someone starts shooting in Wendy's then everyone else can return fire (at the OK Corral)?

Or do you just accept that whilst there is this level of gun ownership, right or wrong, that innocent people will die and that's just unfortunate?

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: krbe It's also because the US is a part of the western world, wether they like it or not. We share some common history, common wars and common emigrants/immigrants. The US isn't a remote island in the Pacific.quote>

What does this have to do with anything?  It seems like you're implying that because we have a common history, we should have a common stance on things.  What's wrong with doing things differently?quote>

That would be a completely wrong conclusion.

Banning homeschooling, French labour regulations and the NHS are also examples of decisions made on a lower level than a constitution. Indeed, the homeschooling ban and labour regulations could perhaps be challenged in a EU court, or in Strasbourg. The EU court has at least had a say on labour regulations on foreginers, which applies to all member states.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

The old saying goes, "You can't legislate morality". It's true! The gov't cannot soft-pad every sharp corner in the world. I can sympathize with the sentiment of not wanting to face the killer instinct in myself or someone else (Rush reference) but it's not the job of the Federal authorities to protect us from every bad guy. Parents of kids who steal their guns to commit crime are legally liable for allowing it to be acquired by the child. There are lock laws in many states, but not all. We are also fed a steady diet of murder and mayhem in TV and movies, and especially video games. 

Anyone who has paid attention in Psychology class knows that we are desensitizing children to extreme violence in an almost perfect way; as recreation. A Clockwork Orange on a mass scale for the E-generation. Even Army psychiatrists noticed this years ago, that the younger generation seemed to be a lot more OK with the idea of gunning down lots of people.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: krbe It's also because the US is a part of the western world, wether they like it or not. We share some common history, common wars and common emigrants/immigrants. The US isn't a remote island in the Pacific.quote>

What does this have to do with anything?  It seems like you're implying that because we have a common history, we should have a common stance on things.  What's wrong with doing things differently?quote>

That would be a completely wrong conclusion.

Banning homeschooling, French labour regulations and the NHS are also examples of decisions made on a lower level than a constitution. Indeed, the homeschooling ban and labour regulations could perhaps be challenged in a EU court, or in Strasbourg. The EU court has at least had a say on labour regulations on foreginers, which applies to all member states.quote>

But again, the question boils down to this - what's wrong with us wanting to take a different stance on things?  What's wrong with the fact that we valued it enough to put it in the Constitution?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: krbe

Look around you? Don't ordinary Americans take an interest in what's happening in other parts of the world? quote>

In general, not as much as we should.  Compared to how Europeans see the world, we have our heads stuck up our, um, . . . stuck in the sand.

The culture we inherited from the Founding Fathers includes a sense of isolationism.  They were quite happy that we had this continent over here, an ocean away from the political turmoils in Europe and we could develop independently from that.  

Obviously, over the years, that has changed somewhat but not nearly to as quickly, or to the degree, that most Europeans would expect.   For instance, it's not difficult to find Europeans who believe we overly delayed our entry into World Wars.  and it's not difficult to find people elsewhere who are convinced we don't see the big picture.

Having personally sat in living rooms in both England and USA discussing world affairs, I can tell you that the average Brit is far more tuned into things than the average American is.   My friends over there are average citizens -- accountant, computer programmer, police detective, etc -- but they can tell you when the chairman of the Federal reserve is due to make his next pronouncement on the interest rates.   Most Americans cannot.

My generation of Americans -- those weird Baby Boomers -- got severely curtailed lessons in history in school.  In the (over)reaction to Sputnik, many school systems reduced history lessons and increased the math and science courses.  This decision is still causing us problems.

Example:  I graduated from high school without ever studying any history later than World War I.  I never studied anything on Asia or the Middle East.   Europe and South American, yes, but that was about it.  

Looking back on it, the mindset was just bizarre.   When my nephew was stationed in Baghdad, my mom wanted to know what time zone it was in.  I pulled out the 1968 World Book Encyclopedia that they still have.   The article on time zones include a chart on various "world cities", showing the time zone.  There was nothing for any place anywhere in the Middle East.  It was like these whole time zones didn't even exist.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

But again, the question boils down to this - what's wrong with us wanting to take a different stance on things?  What's wrong with the fact that we valued it enough to put it in the Constitution?quote>

Nothing. But it's not your stance (it's been there some years now), and there isn't consensus regarding this questions (hence why this thread exists).

This is also a cultural question; and the culture in America isn't homogeneous.

A European Gun Ban

I've taken a look at the Norwegian Firearm and Ammunition Act.

- Applies to any object capable of fireing, wether it is bullets, gas, rockets, flamethrowers, etc.

- As well as ammunition, grenades, tear gas, bombs, mines, etc.

- Weapon permits are given by the Chief Constable to persons who need firearms, or who have a reason to posess one or more firearms.

- To be eligble for permits, you have to be at least 18, unless you have a guardian that accepts responsibility, in which case you can get the from the age of 16.

- Permits for hand guns are only give to persons above 21 years of age.

- You have to be "sober and trustful" in order to obtain a weapon; you can be denied permits if you for some reason are considered unable to posess and handle one (individual assesment by the local authority). If special cirumstances applies, a permit can be time limited.

- The weapon permit /mandate shall accompany the weapon at all times.

- Weapons shall not be carried in public places without valid reason; and they shall be concealed and empty.

- Firearms and ammunition shall be kept under lock and key.

This is the legislation which concerns all ownership of firearms (except for police and the armed forces). In addition the law governs sale, import and manufacturing (dealers have to licensed and registered; manufacturers need to obtain a permit from the department). Local rules may vary, such as on Spitzbergen were it's illegal to go outside settlements without being armed and prepared for weather changes.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Looking back on it, the mindset was just bizarre.   When my nephew was stationed in Baghdad, my mom wanted to know what time zone it was in.  I pulled out the 1968 World Book Encyclopedia that they still have.   The article on time zones include a chart on various "world cities", showing the time zone.  There was nothing for any place anywhere in the Middle East.  It was like these whole time zones didn't even exist.

quote>

Didn't it have one of those fancy world maps?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

All sounds reasonable for a place where you can trust people, IMO. That's why it wouldn't work here, frankly. You just can't trust people here. Which is something that bothers me, but it's not something that is going to change; at least not for the better.

An example. I love babies. Not in a weird way (stop it), but in an adoring way. I love babies and babies love me. I can make any baby laugh in under 20 seconds. But now, at say, in line at Starbucks, if I pay too much attention to a baby the parent will start getting creeped out. And that sucks, but it's an understandable reaction to a world full of pedophiles and the like. For our own protection, we barely trust family! And they say, "Friends may come and go, but nobodys screws you over like family".

[krbe 193]

^^ A little off topic, but the papers here in Denmark recently had a story on photo prohibitions in swimming halls and the fear of phedophiles; even pensioners have been thrown out for waving to them! Fortunatly it's till opposition to such hysteric measures, and one of the papers made sure to run a full page picture of two naked children bathing (tastefully censored on the front page though)

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

But again, the question boils down to this - what's wrong with us wanting to take a different stance on things?  What's wrong with the fact that we valued it enough to put it in the Constitution?quote>

Nothing. But it's not your stance (it's been there some years now), and there isn't consensus regarding this questions (hence why this thread exists).

This is also a cultural question; and the culture in America isn't homogeneous.quote>

But despite all that, there's a general consensus that they shouldn't be banned.  Ideas on what how to regulate them is up for a lot of debate, but repealing the Second Amendment is something hardly anyone except for those outside the United States ever espouse.  Most of the time, it's boils down to some sort of law on who can get their hands on what.  That's a pretty big difference.

[krbe 193]

Actually, that kind of regulation was always what I though a gun ban would be—to keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable people. As you see from where I come from, a normal person has absolutlely no problems in obtaining a weapon. Hand guns, rifles, shotguns and the like is prevalent for sport and hunting; and those in the Home Guard used to to keep assult rifles, ammunition, sidearms and such as home, but it a vital part was moved out to local military stations after a series of killings committed with them (and nobody has since enetered the black market or modified them in order to kill anyone).

The only  "ban" we have is that you can't take them with you in public (streets and such) without a valid reason, and that they should be emptied. I've queued behind people with large guns over their shoulder at several Norwegian airports.

[spacemanspiff 0]

Thanks for the year typo catch, Duke87.

Very interesting thread, and it's gotten better. That makes me happy.

I'm glad that people are mentioning that violence is a cultural issue. In the US, a contributing factor to the problem has been the recent phenomenon of cultural fracturing. It was one thing when that nation was just divided along a black/white line, but the last few decades have seen a surge in the number of class and cultural categories. Now you have African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Gay-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and the list goes on. The opportunity for prejudices to exist has exploded, and violence rates have reflected that. The lack of unity is a growing problem. Add some economic instability to the mix and people are literally forced to act on those prejudices as a form of competition for resources. Worse still are subcultures that find violence to be acceptable. Usually, this is born completely of ignorance. People who are unable to cope with issues intellectually skip straight to physical action. It's the same everywhere you go. Sunnis and Shiites. Hutu and Tootsie. Ignorance, prejudice, culture, and competition are all contributing factors. When you get down to the core of the problem, gun ownership is hardly a factor in the equation.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

spacemanspiff is right on, IMO. I have long been galled by the 'hyphenated Americans'. 

Either you are,or you are not, an American. I am not a British-French Canadian-Norwegian-German-Native-American. I am simply an American. Anything else just trivializes what we really are, it's almost an oxymoron or redundancy to identify by a hyphen in the case of a nation built off of all backgrounds.

 It makes less sense than the tendency of Americans prior to the Civil War to identify themselves by state, instead of ancestry. 

Nationalism in other contexts and countries can sometimes be a code for racism or ethnic strife, but that's not true here; because we are the melting pot. When I identify myself as an American Nationalist, I mean that all races and ancestries are included. It is about unity as Americans, without fractionalizing into various sub-groups. The us-vs-them infighting just distracts all of us from the things that really matter as a society.

[north country dude 202]

Originally posted by: krbe Well, the second definition covers anybody (but still service). However the first, just says it's a force not part of the regular, professional army (Army, Navy, Air Force), such as a lot of Home Guards and Militias around the world.quote>

You cannot force the definition. A militia is what it says, ordinary citizens bearing arms. The term "militia" does not refer to or is defined by the Continental Army, which was the professional army of that time, which later became the U.S. Army and National Guard.

And in regards to the second amendment, which weight does Milita with a capital M bear, as well as being in singular?quote>

Irrelevant. You have to understand that, in order to safeguard the other amendments in the U.S. Constitution, an armed populace is your best weapon, because it will not allow a tyrannical government to come to power. This was the main thinking behind the Second Amendment.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."-James Madison

duke87 explained it best here:

Our philosophy has always been "government by the people, of the people, for the people". In other words, they only get to do things because we want them to. They're not the boss of us, we're the boss of them. If they displease us, we get to fire them from their jobs by not voting for them. So, naturally, no law can ever be effective so long as there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees with it.quote>

If you try to 'legislate' away the Second Amendment, it becomes easier to legislate away the other amendments. But, it is this Constitution that has enabled America to become a free and open society. It has fostered a mentality of individualism and independence that is very difficult to erase.

The American system of government is known as the "Great Experiment", but guess what? through all of its problems and misfortunes, it still works!

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."-Benjamin Franklin

I won't disagree that the 'lethality' of firearms has increased dramatically in the last 300 years, and some form of control and responsibility toward firearms is certainly needed. That's why the U.S. Federal and State governments have gun control laws. Maybe some of the States need better laws, but that's only for the individual people who elected those State Governments to decide.

Explaining how your country deals with the issue of gun control, is fine. It is probably the best system of control for you, but, what works well for one place or society, won't necessarily work well for another place or society.

As SkiGeek has said over and over here, "It just won't work". As many others have tried to explain, because of the nature and fundamental philosophy underlining the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment ensures that a First Amendment, and 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., will always be there. It is there to protect us from our government.

"People should not be afraid of their government, it is the government that should be afraid if its people."

[The Boy 0]

Oh by the way, I'm really happy with the surge in Iraq (Don't worry I'm on topic with this post) but I disagree with using the National Guard, I really hate that the militia pretty much of our homeland, is deployed, now I'm 'm not going to go around blaming bush or the war solely on this but I really hate the fact that the National Guard is away from the homeland.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: north country dude

Irrelevant. You have to understand that, in order to safeguard the other amendments in the U.S. Constitution, an armed populace is your best weapon, because it will not allow a tyrannical government to come to power. This was the main thinking behind the Second Amendment.

quote>

But well-regulated? Is that irrelevant too, or did it mean something else back then?

"People should not be afraid of their government, it is the government that should be afraid if its people."

quote>

Exactly. But I can assure you that, if your government really wants to get rid of you, no gun in the world would save you.

[Msprintz 25]

Ah the second amendment, granting citizens in the United States the right to bear arms.  A right to bear arms, ah so subtle, but still not the right to bear "firearms".  The rights granted by the second amendment allow citizens not to carry guns but to form their own protection services ie:fire, police, ems and even a militia if applicable.  It also ensures citizens the right to have the  necessary tools to operate those services ie: guns, fire hoses ect... .

People however assume that this automatically grants them the right to carry a firearm, and unfortunately this amendment does not guarantee that.  

I'm not going to say we should scrap the second amendment, infact I'm very much in favor of it.  I believe we as citizens should be allowed to protect ourselves and acquire the necessary tools to do such.  I'm am however going to say that America does need stricter gun control laws, that can hopefully ease this violence.  In addition I see this violence as a failure of education as well, a better educated public is less likely to turn to gun violence.  Regardless of how much you do though there will still be some innocent lives lost, however a difference can be made.  It just takes a lot of hard work and time.   

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbeThe only  "ban" we have is that you can't take them with you in public (streets and such) without a valid reason, and that they should be emptied. I've queued behind people with large guns over their shoulder at several Norwegian airports.quote>

Wow. I'm trying to picture that for a minute... without TSA guys tackling them, the airport getting locked down, and the person getting handcuffed and ending up spending a long time in jail... and I'm having trouble doing it. An airport is probably the last place in America you want to be caught with a gun. You're not allowed to fly with them, even in your checked luggage. And I can't image the metal detectors taking to kindly to one, either...

[wir3d 2]

wow last time i posted here this place had two posts. Wow started off quick.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: krbeThe only  "ban" we have is that you can't take them with you in public (streets and such) without a valid reason, and that they should be emptied. I've queued behind people with large guns over their shoulder at several Norwegian airports.quote>

Wow. I'm trying to picture that for a minute... without TSA guys tackling them, the airport getting locked down, and the person getting handcuffed and ending up spending a long time in jail... and I'm having trouble doing it. An airport is probably the last place in America you want to be caught with a gun. You're not allowed to fly with them, even in your checked luggage. And I can't image the metal detectors taking to kindly to one, either...quote>

You can fly with them in checked luggage.  You can take virtually anything with you in checked luggage as long as it won't explode. 

TSA Regulations

[spacemanspiff 0]

Correct, Voar Tok. All you need to do is declare it when you check your baggage. Sometimes they check it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they tag it, and sometimes they don't. Cargo (baggage) is handled in a logical manner.

Speaking of TSA and firearms. The September 11 attacks were carried out with box cutters, not firearms. Policy at the time was to comply with hijackers and negotiate. Part of the response was to ban anything pointy on flights, which I thought was absurd. I could just imagine what would happen if someone tried to hijack an aircraft with a nail file after Sept. 11. They'd have to remove that person from the plane with a squeegee.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: krbeThe only  "ban" we have is that you can't take them with you in public (streets and such) without a valid reason, and that they should be emptied. I've queued behind people with large guns over their shoulder at several Norwegian airports.quote>

Wow. I'm trying to picture that for a minute... without TSA guys tackling them, the airport getting locked down, and the person getting handcuffed and ending up spending a long time in jail... and I'm having trouble doing it. An airport is probably the last place in America you want to be caught with a gun. You're not allowed to fly with them, even in your checked luggage. And I can't image the metal detectors taking to kindly to one, either...quote>

It's probably something else when you know that the guys with their guns are going to the national competition (or are hunterers, if it's the season). As VT says, you can take most items with you; even knives and scissors are allowed as long as you're not going to use them for terror purposes (under 6 cm blade). But they had check to my pen at Berlin-Tegel when I forgot to declare it

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff Part of the response was to ban anything pointy on flights, which I thought was absurd. I could just imagine what would happen if someone tried to hijack an aircraft with a nail file after Sept. 11. They'd have to remove that person from the plane with a squeegee.quote>

If you're flying Swiss, Business/First Class passengers are getting real cutlery and china. And I don't think the crew would be without weapons too. And in the last instance, the door to the cockpit should be locked. Also, don't the US have Air Marshals?

[spacemanspiff 0]

I think US Air Marshal coverage is random. Given their plainclothes appearance, you are supposed to never be certain of their presence. I would think training and equipping airline staff would be a better option. I think if a September 11 event were to happen again, it would have to be a charter flight full of terrorists. In any case, it still wouldn't rely on the use of firearms.

I was once in line with a bunch of military school students. They were all declaring firearms. No fuss, no muss.

[Dodge44 2]

Originally posted by: mks24

Ah the second amendment, granting citizens in the United States the right to bear arms.  A right to bear arms, ah so subtle, but still not the right to bear "firearms".  The rights granted by the second amendment allow citizens not to carry guns but to form their own protection services ie:fire, police, ems and even a militia if applicable.  It also ensures citizens the right to have the  necessary tools to operate those services ie: guns, fire hoses ect... .

People however assume that this automatically grants them the right to carry a firearm, and unfortunately this amendment does not guarantee that.quote>

   

The definition of arms would be anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. source

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols,knives,swords, and even submachine guns, are arms. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok You can fly with them in checked luggage.  You can take virtually anything with you in checked luggage as long as it won't explode. 

TSA Regulationsquote>

My Info must be out of date, then. I know when I flew to Denver in July 2006 there were signs saying that you couldn't take any guns on the plane at all. I guess the regulations have been relaxed since then.

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Voar Tok You can fly with them in checked luggage.  You can take virtually anything with you in checked luggage as long as it won't explode. 

TSA Regulationsquote>

My Info must be out of date, then. I know when I flew to Denver in July 2006 there were signs saying that you couldn't take any guns on the plane at all. I guess the regulations have been relaxed since then.quote>

I also flew to Denver, but in June of 2006, and brought a gun back home with me. It has to be in with your regular luggage. Guns are banned from carry on bags though (obviously). If you do take it, you have to take it apart, and it is guaranteed  they will search it regardless.

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff I think US Air Marshal coverage is random. Given their plainclothes appearance, you are supposed to never be certain of their presence. I would think training and equipping airline staff would be a better option. I think if a September 11 event were to happen again, it would have to be a charter flight full of terrorists. In any case, it still wouldn't rely on the use of firearms.

I was once in line with a bunch of military school students. They were all declaring firearms. No fuss, no muss.quote>

I have a friend and his dad is a US Air Marshal.... coverage is random, I like that though, never know when you'll have an Air Marshal on the plane! I feel safer with that, I'm happy that he'll fire 3 shots into each terrorists chest, kill them, and then keep everything right. I'm really glad that thats where some tax money is going, I don't know about you guys but I'm glad with it..

Well, I was just doing some browsing I'm thinking of joining the Junior NRA, heck, with NRA members, we don't need national security, deputize them! Just kidding.

I'm glad that TSA will tackle you, lockdown the whole airport and do other things if a threat has been declared. TSA is great, but I'm pretty sure they've gotta improve a little bit after undercover officers took stuff on a plane that could've made a liquid bomb, I'm not happy with that one bit.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: The Boy

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff I think US Air Marshal coverage is random. Given their plainclothes appearance, you are supposed to never be certain of their presence. I would think training and equipping airline staff would be a better option. I think if a September 11 event were to happen again, it would have to be a charter flight full of terrorists. In any case, it still wouldn't rely on the use of firearms.

I was once in line with a bunch of military school students. They were all declaring firearms. No fuss, no muss.quote>

I have a friend and his dad is a US Air Marshal.... coverage is random, I like that though, never know when you'll have an Air Marshal on the plane! I feel safer with that, I'm happy that he'll fire 3 shots into each terrorists chest, kill them, and then keep everything right. I'm really glad that thats where some tax money is going, I don't know about you guys but I'm glad with it..

Well, I was just doing some browsing I'm thinking of joining the Junior NRA, heck, with NRA members, we don't need national security, deputize them! Just kidding.

I'm glad that TSA will tackle you, lockdown the whole airport and do other things if a threat has been declared. TSA is great, but I'm pretty sure they've gotta improve a little bit after undercover officers took stuff on a plane that could've made a liquid bomb, I'm not happy with that one bit.quote>

Clearly you've never set off the metal detector.

[The Boy 0]

Okay, well I haven't been to an airport in a while, I do realize having a few metal things can be hectic or give you JUST LET ME GO NOW I WILL DO ANYTHING, WANT MONEY HERE TAKE IT thoughts and stuff, but I'm glad they're there in case worse comes to worse