NationStates Jolt Archive

A federal appeals court has dismissed a Georgia gun group's lawsuit seeking to allow firearms in parts of the world's busiest airport. I am not serious that this is a serious blow to Second Amendment rights.

The group GeorgiaCarry.org (http://www.georgiacarry.org/) sued after the city of Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport banned guns from even unsecured areas in the terminals.

That was a response to a Georgia law passed last summer that allows people with permits to take their guns into restaurants and state parks and on public transportation.

A federal judge had already thrown out GeorgiaCarry's lawsuit, and a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his decision Thursday.

Gun rights advocates say now they may try to get the law changed to specifically allow guns in the airport.

linky (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/03-12-2009/20090312125006_06.html)

I'm sorry but IMHO the gun nuts are being ridiculous. Airports are a reasonable place to restrict the carrying of guns.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals brief unpublished decision affirming the district court may be found here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815571.pdf).

Various document including the Complaint by Georgia Carry (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/complaint.pdf) and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's decision (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/Doc%2050%20Order%20granting%20MJOP.pdf) dismissing the case may be found here (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/).

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??

I am not serious that this is a serious blow to Second Amendment rights.


You know, for a minute I thought you had just gone mad. :p

'Gun nuts'. Says it all.

Hmm... I need more details.

Are we talking restricting guns in the airport terminal, or on the entirety of the airport grounds? (I.E. - in the trunks of private vehicles)

Also, what's the penalty for it?

As long as you're still allowed to unload guns in their cases from your car and take them to the check-in, I'm fine with the other restrictions. Airport security has enough to deal with without checking gun permits.

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??

Baaaaaaaaaawwwwwww, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. I just proved you wrong bitch!

Oh no they are taking our rights to carry deadly weapons in a place where they are totally not needed away!

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??...It's like trying to carry a gun into a school. o_0;

Does not compute.

How Am I supposed to shoot terrorist with out my guns ????

What's the rationale behind disallowing guns in airports, specifically?

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??

Whether guns are allowed or not should be up to the airports in question, IMO.

What's the rationale behind disallowing guns in airports, specifically?
I dunno, preventing making hijacks easier?

I dunno, preventing making hijacks easier?

I think these days most (read: all) pilots are not even going to perform a takeoff at the point of a gun.

I think these days most (read: all) pilots are not even going to perform a takeoff at the point of a gun.

yeah before a hijacking just meant a vacation to Cuba. Now it means you get flown into a building.

I think as long as you put them in the check luggage it should be ok,

I can see why they don't want them on the plane as carry on. But even then... it's not like the whole 9-11 thing used guns. Maybe if guns were allowed on planes 9/11 wouldn't have been so bad.

Who can say?

I think these days most (read: all) pilots are not even going to perform a takeoff at the point of a gun.

What do pilots matter if your hijackers are trained to fly? They just have to storm a plane when it's loading. Shoot their way through the few security guards and run through the terminal with appropriate timing.

I don't understand this "need" to carry guns everywhere. When I was last in Ohio, I noticed that there was a sign at the entrance of the Great Lakes Science Center asking guests not to bring guns inside. I wouldn't have imagined this is something they'd actually have to ask someone to leave out of a science centre, full of kids.

There was also such a sign at a bank... I would have assumed this is a place where one should assume that carrying a gun isn't a good idea. Or well... anywhere that isn't a shooting range...

I can see why they don't want them on the plane as carry on. But even then... it's not like the whole 9-11 thing used guns. Maybe if guns were allowed on planes 9/11 wouldn't have been so bad.

Who can say?
Or the hijackers would have just used guns. A couple of hijackers who know they'll be using their guns and thus train and prepare for this moment and are probably willing to take human shields versus random couple of civilians.

What do pilots matter if your hijackers are trained to fly? They just have to storm a plane when it's loading. Shoot their way through the few security guards and run through the terminal with appropriate timing.

Except that, you know, they have to get pushed back from the gate which requires people on the ground to assist. They also have to memorize the airport layout, and manage to make it to the runway without getting blocked by police or airport security, not to mention learning to start a turbojet, which is not cheap training to get.

Not sure about the effects of allowed gun carrying - but if was mandatory, 911 just wouldn't happen at all.

Not sure about the effects of allowed gun carrying - but if was mandatory, 911 just wouldn't happen at all.

but everytime drunk passengers didn't get serviced from a flight attendant there would be a shooting and a depressurization of the cabin.

Meh, might be fun.

We should allow citizens who have a concealed-carry permit to bring their guns to airports. These citizens have already been cleared as law-abiding enough to have a conealed firearm, and therefore there is less reason to be suspicious of them. Furthermore, it actually increases security on-board the aircraft. If only the Federal Air Marshall (by the way, these days there isn't one on every flight) has a weapon, a terrorist need only incapacitate one person to eliminate all defenses the passengers have. Therefore, a way for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is ideal.

Or the hijackers would have just used guns. A couple of hijackers who know they'll be using their guns and thus train and prepare for this moment and are probably willing to take human shields versus random couple of civilians.

Considering what actually happened, an all out gun battle on the plane would have been an optimal outcome.

I'm neither for nor against the idea of allowing personal firearms as part of the carry on luggage. My point is that it doesn't provide any safety one way or another.

but if was mandatory, 911 just wouldn't happen at all.

Being forced to carry a gun when you go into an airport, a rather disturbing dystopian society that would be.

Not sure about the effects of allowed gun carrying - but if was mandatory, 911 just wouldn't happen at all.

Or people would start turning around and shooting the person who has been kicking the back of their seat nonstop for 8 hours on a regular basis.

What do pilots matter if your hijackers are trained to fly? They just have to storm a plane when it's loading. Shoot their way through the few security guards and run through the terminal with appropriate timing.

I don't understand this "need" to carry guns everywhere. When I was last in Ohio, I noticed that there was a sign at the entrance of the Great Lakes Science Center asking guests not to bring guns inside. I wouldn't have imagined this is something they'd actually have to ask someone to leave out of a science centre, full of kids.

There was also such a sign at a bank... I would have assumed this is a place where one should assume that carrying a gun isn't a good idea. Or well... anywhere that isn't a shooting range...

Hopefully the reinforced cockpit doors the airlines have supposedly installed make guns less useful in hijackings. You could threaten to kill a passenger if you weren't flown to Cuba, but you couldn't say "fly us into a building, or I'll shoot this guy," of course.

I can understand concealed carry in secure areas if you have proof that your life is in danger - if you've gotten death threats or the like, and obtained a permit for that reason. But there are some places (like airports) where that shouldn't apply, just because of the crowding and existing security measures.

but everytime drunk passengers didn't get serviced from a flight attendant there would be a shooting and a depressurization of the cabin.
Somehow, when I'm drunk, with a gun, and don't get serviced or whatever, there is no shooting.

What am I doing wrong?

If we could just find an effective way to restrict idiots, the need to restrict guns would diminish considerably.

That's my not-so-random thought for the day.

Being forced to carry a gun when you go into an airport, a rather disturbing dystopian society that would be.
I've seen people forced to carry not just pistols, but assault rifles as they boarded planes and helicopters.

Didn't notice anything dystopian about it.

Considering what actually happened, an all out gun battle on the plane would have been an optimal outcome.

I'm neither for nor against the idea of allowing personal firearms as part of the carry on luggage. My point is that it doesn't provide any safety one way or another.

Umm.... I'm saying an all out gun battle probably would have had the same results as hijackers using box cutters. Most people would freeze or shoot a hole in the plane which would do nothing more than knock everyone out (or tether them to masks) while the hijackers get into the cockpit and do their thing. On the other hand, the people who were planning such an attack would probably train and learn to shoot. They would also be prepared and know that this isn't going to be a leisurely flight where they can safely stow their gun in the overhead compartment because maybe it isn't so comfy in its holster.

I've seen people forced to carry not just pistols, but assault rifles as they boarded planes and helicopters.

Didn't notice anything dystopian about it.

That's because a soldier, where handling a rifle is part of the job he consented to, travelling to another base, is completely different to civilians going in an airport.

I've seen people forced to carry not just pistols, but assault rifles as they boarded planes and helicopters.

Didn't notice anything dystopian about it.

Military aircraft != civilian aircraft.

Just because you may think you're going to war when you're hopping on a plane doesn't mean you are.

If we could just find an effective way to restrict idiots, the need to restrict guns would diminish considerably.

That's my not-so-random thought for the day.

after your 18th birthday you are given an IQ test. score below 90 and your put down.

Umm.... I'm saying an all out gun battle probably would have had the same results as hijackers using box cutters. Most people would freeze or shoot a hole in the plane which would do nothing more than knock everyone out (or tether them to masks) while the hijackers get into the cockpit and do their thing. On the other hand, the people who were planning such an attack would probably train and learn to shoot. They would also be prepared and know that this isn't going to be a leisurely flight where they can safely stow their gun in the overhead compartment because maybe it isn't so comfy in its holster.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. We're talking about guns in unsecured areas of the airport, including baggage check-in areas - not inside the secure area of the terminal or even in the airplane.

Meh, might be fun.

We should allow citizens who have a concealed-carry permit to bring their guns to airports. These citizens have already been cleared as law-abiding enough to have a conealed firearm, and therefore there is less reason to be suspicious of them. Furthermore, it actually increases security on-board the aircraft. If only the Federal Air Marshall (by the way, these days there isn't one on every flight) has a weapon, a terrorist need only incapacitate one person to eliminate all defenses the passengers have. Therefore, a way for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is ideal.

That makes sense, but considering that everyone's being searched anyway (both the permit holder and the potential attacker) and that airport security is basically everywhere, concealed carry is sort of redundant at the airport. The slight sense of security the permit holder might have could be outweighed by the benefits of streamlining the security screening process. That's what I'm guessing the airports argued.

Considering what actually happened, an all out gun battle on the plane would have been an optimal outcome.


Are we certain of that? Stray bullets would almost certainly lead to depressurization, and likely a crash anyway. And even if you avert one attack, you make up for it with a higher number of air crashes resulting from aggressive, hysterical or just drunk passengers with guns and not liking being restrained by the aircrew.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. We're talking about guns in unsecured areas of the airport, including baggage check-in areas - not inside the secure area of the terminal or even in the airplane.
If you read the thread, you'll note that the conversation here started off with someone saying that if guns had been allowed on airplanes, the September 11th attacks wouldn't have happened. I pointed out that the results would probably have been the same. You responded, not having read anything, with an irrelevant comment.

Thanks.

Somehow, when I'm drunk, with a gun, and don't get serviced or whatever, there is no shooting.

What am I doing wrong?

You're not in an airplane, and you're apparently not the sort of drunk to get aggressive when drunk.

Meh, might be fun.

We should allow citizens who have a concealed-carry permit to bring their guns to airports. These citizens have already been cleared as law-abiding enough to have a conealed firearm, and therefore there is less reason to be suspicious of them. Furthermore, it actually increases security on-board the aircraft. If only the Federal Air Marshall (by the way, these days there isn't one on every flight) has a weapon, a terrorist need only incapacitate one person to eliminate all defenses the passengers have. Therefore, a way for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is ideal.
Oddly enough, before the people who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, they were also law abiding residents of the US.

...how was your point supposed to be helpful?

That's because a soldier, where handling a rifle is part of the job he consented to, travelling to another base, is completely different to civilians going in an airport.
However, I find a hard time imagining a few terrorists overtaking a loaded troop transport.

This means it's better protected against terrorists than a civilian one, so, basically, it's better.

If we want security, the way to achieve it is arming the populace. To be effective, it takes a certain degree of militarization, i.e. training for everybody, not just career servicemen, but it provides a much higher level of security than demeaning search procedures can.

Somehow, when I'm drunk, with a gun, and don't get serviced or whatever, there is no shooting.

What am I doing wrong?

your not taking the lack of service as a personal insult on your honor. Get angry and let the whole world know it with your gun.

Umm.... I'm saying an all out gun battle probably would have had the same results as hijackers using box cutters. Most people would freeze or shoot a hole in the plane which would do nothing more than knock everyone out (or tether them to masks) while the hijackers get into the cockpit and do their thing. On the other hand, the people who were planning such an attack would probably train and learn to shoot. They would also be prepared and know that this isn't going to be a leisurely flight where they can safely stow their gun in the overhead compartment because maybe it isn't so comfy in its holster.

Haha, shoot a hole in the plane. Very hard to steer at that point, orthotropic hulls notwithstanding (I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about commercial hulls).

Anyway, you make a whole bunch of assumptions. Not least being that the non terrorists on the plane were just carrying as a fashion item, rather than being people who actually knew how to use their guns.

And in any event, if it even reduced the probability of hitting the world trade center towers by even one thousand of an amount it would have been worth it in terms of lives saved.

However, I find a hard time imagining a few terrorists overtaking a loaded troop transport.

This means it's better protected against terrorists than a civilian one, so, basically, it's better.

Civilians aren't trained in handling firearms.

If we want security, the way to achieve it is arming the populace. To be effective, it takes a certain degree of militarization, i.e. training for everybody, not just career servicemen, but it provides a much higher level of security than demeaning search procedures can.

How isn't this dystopian?

If you read the thread, you'll note that the conversation here started off with someone saying that if guns had been allowed on airplanes, the September 11th attacks wouldn't have happened. I pointed out that the results would probably have been the same. You responded, not having read anything, with an irrelevant comment.

Thanks.

Except he specifically said that he understands why they wouldn't want guns on airplanes, but that he sees no problem with guns being in placed in baggage (and, probably, being in the unsecured areas of the airport).

In addition, he wasn't the person you responded to.

Civilians aren't trained in handling firearms.



How isn't this dystopian?

How is it dystopian?!

Are we certain of that? Stray bullets would almost certainly lead to depressurization, and likely a crash anyway. And even if you avert one attack, you make up for it with a higher number of air crashes resulting from aggressive, hysterical or just drunk passengers with guns and not liking being restrained by the aircrew.

I think we could spend all afternoon, and everyone after it flying planes into the ground full of passengers, and still not get to the death toll which resulted from 9-11.

Civilians aren't trained in handling firearms.
That's why they should be trained.


How isn't this dystopian?
It's better to give up freedom for the duration of training than to give it up for the entire life.

Haha, shoot a hole in the plane. Very hard to steer at that point, orthotropic hulls notwithstanding (I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about commercial hulls).

Once the plane is depressurized, how exactly would it be hard to steer? We're talking about a small hole so it's not like a huge section is going to blow away.

Anyway, you make a whole bunch of assumptions. Not least being that the non terrorists on the plane were just carrying as a fashion item, rather than being people who actually knew how to use their guns.

Most people who own guns don't know how to fire them properly and even those who do are likely to choke under pressure.

And in any event, if it even reduced the probability of hitting the world trade center towers by even one thousand of an amount it would have been worth it in terms of lives saved.

Not really. I very much doubt that it would have done much of anything and they probably would have steered them into NYC at least, which would still kill a lot of people (hell, maybe more if they just ended up plowing through several busy streets).

Civilians aren't trained in handling firearms.


I'm a civilian. And I was trained to handle firearms. Moreover I was trained by the UK government.

It's better to give up freedom for the duration of training than to give it up for the entire life.

It's better still to avoid a life of paranoia.

I'm a civilian. And I was trained to handle firearms. Moreover I was trained by the UK government.

Yes. One is a good representative sample.

What are doing, advocating taking replacement penes away in airports, Dakini?

Except he specifically said that he understands why they wouldn't want guns on airplanes, but that he sees no problem with guns being in placed in baggage (and, probably, being in the unsecured areas of the airport).

In addition, he wasn't the person you responded to.

He was the person who responded with:

Considering what actually happened, an all out gun battle on the plane would have been an optimal outcome.

however, which is what I was responding to. Excuse me for not cutting out extra parts of posts all the time.

Haha, shoot a hole in the plane. Very hard to steer at that point, orthotropic hulls notwithstanding (I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about commercial hulls).

Oh rly?

That's interesting, given this, (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%200524.html) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) and numerous others.

What are doing, advocating taking replacement penes away in airports, Dakini?
No, I'm trying to point out that it's idiotic to think that people having guns on a plane make anyone safer since someone tried to claim this.

However, I find a hard time imagining a few terrorists overtaking a loaded troop transport.

This means it's better protected against terrorists than a civilian one, so, basically, it's better.

If we want security, the way to achieve it is arming the populace. To be effective, it takes a certain degree of militarization, i.e. training for everybody, not just career servicemen, but it provides a much higher level of security than demeaning search procedures can.

Ok I have so much to say to this, but it's pointless. If you're really worried about security, having a well trained security officer on every plane should more than suffice, having everyone forced to be armed is a massive superfluous cost.

Oh rly?

That's interesting, given this, (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%200524.html) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) and numerous others.

Sky Marshals use frangible bullets anyway. They don't go through the plane.

It's better still to avoid a life of paranoia.
It is.

But if that's not an option, out of either the government paranoically stripping away people's freedoms to hinder the terrorists, and people paranoically getting armed and trained to stop the terrorists if they show up, I'd much rather opt for the latter way.

Once the plane is depressurized, how exactly would it be hard to steer? We're talking about a small hole so it's not like a huge section is going to blow away.

Yes, a huge section tends to blow away once depressurized. It's part of depressurization. I would refer you to the hawaii air incident. (Or ring theory).

Most people who own guns don't know how to fire them properly and even those who do are likely to choke under pressure.

Oh come, on that's totally ipse dixit. We can go back and forth on that forever and never get a satisfactory answer. In my experience people who own guns do tend to now how to use them.

Not really. I very much doubt that it would have done much of anything and they probably would have steered them into NYC at least, which would still kill a lot of people (hell, maybe more if they just ended up plowing through several busy streets).

Hijacked well before NYC. Might well have gone the way of TWA 800. And that would have saved a million Iraqi lives. So yes lots of hijackings would have been worth it.

In any case, don't be so dogmatic.

Sky Marshals use frangible bullets anyway. They don't go through the plane.

Well, an explosive depressurization has a prescribed procedure. The pilots don their masks, chop the turbojets to idle, and put the plane into a dive with shallow banks left and right.

If an airplane was not really controllable after a blowout, the procedure wouldn't be so simple - they'd have to determine which side the blowout was on, and make a measured response - but that's not part of the procedure.

Oh rly?

That's interesting, given this, (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1989/1989%20-%200524.html) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243) and this, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) and numerous others.

Yes, very hard to steer. Well trained pilots can do it obviously, but it is not something someone with a few hours in the cockpit can do.

Also, please note that it was more than a little hole caused by depressurization.

Well, an explosive depressurization has a prescribed procedure. The pilots don their masks, chop the turbojets to idle, and put the plane into a dive with shallow banks left and right.

If an airplane was not really controllable after a blowout, the procedure wouldn't be so simple - they'd have to determine which side the blowout was on, and make a measured response - but that's not part of the procedure.

how the hell do you know all that?

how the hell do you know all that?

I'm a private pilot with an instrument rating, and the guy who did the simulator work with me was an A320 pilot 2 weeks out of the month.

We hung out a lot. I learned a lot about airline procedures, aircraft systems, various security measures, and other things.

Yes, a huge section tends to blow away once depressurized. It's part of depressurization. I would refer you to the hawaii air incident. (Or ring theory).

I refer you to the episode of Mythbusters where they demonstrated that a small hole (i.e. a bullet hole) does not cause an explosive depressurization, just a regular depressurization (i.e. the air just goes out the bullet hole). The Aloha* Air incident involved a larger section of hull failing.

*At least get the airline name correct.

Oh come, on that's totally ipse dixit. We can go back and forth on that forever and never get a satisfactory answer. In my experience people who own guns do tend to now how to use them.

Yes, which is why so many people off/injure their family members and themselves with firearms.

Hijacked well before NYC. Might well have gone the way of TWA 800. And that would have saved a million Iraqi lives. So yes lots of hijackings would have been worth it.

Bush would have found another excuse to attack Iraq. Iraq didn't even have a damn thing to do with the attacks in the first place! Also, yes, because people couldn't plan the timing of their hijackings such that they do it while flying near a major city...

In any case, don't be so dogmatic.

I'm being dogmatic because I'm pointing out flaws in the idea that some scattered armed civilians would have done a damn thing against people who planned an attack?

I'm a private pilot with an instrument rating, and the guy who did the simulator work with me was an A320 pilot 2 weeks out of the month.

We hung out a lot. I learned a lot about airline procedures, aircraft systems, various security measures, and other things.

And he told you nothing, obviously, about losing a chunk of the hull. Because as far as I know it's never happened with an 320.

If you shoot out the hull, at whole bit will blow away. That's how it is designed. And if you lose a chunk of the hull, well then, you'd better know what you are doing. I am not saying it causes a crash, but it's not something an inexperienced pilot can land or steer owing to aerodynamics. Call your 320 friend, he'll tell you exactly that.

And he told you nothing, obviously, about losing a chunk of the hull. Because as far as I know it's never happened with an 320.

If you shoot out the hull, at whole bit will blow away. That's how it is designed. And if you lose a chunk of the hull, well then, you'd better know what you are doing. I am not saying it causes a crash, but it's not something an inexperienced pilot can land or steer owing to aerodynamics. Call your 320 friend, he'll tell you exactly that.

Multiengine pilots (of piston aircraft) are taught to fly and land a plane with an engine that is not only failed but refuses to feather. It takes more control inputs, but it's very easily accomplished.

If you have two 3,000+ hour pilots in front (as most airlines do), I'm sure they'll be able to manage with a few holes in the hull of a turbojet with massive hydraulically-operated control surfaces.

I refer you to the episode of Mythbusters where they demonstrated that a small hole (i.e. a bullet hole) does not cause an explosive depressurization, just a regular depressurization (i.e. the air just goes out the bullet hole).

Well if it's mythbusters - the people who don't understand how I beams work - then it must be true.

Multiengine pilots (of piston aircraft) are taught to fly and land a plane with an engine that is not only failed but refuses to feather. It takes more control inputs, but it's very easily accomplished.

If you have two 3,000+ hour pilots in front (as most airlines do), I'm sure they'll be able to manage with a few holes in the hull of a turbojet with massive hydraulically-operated control surfaces.

we are talking about terrorist taking over the plane and flying it into a building. not about a commercial pilot during an emergency landing.

we are talking about terrorist taking over the plane and flying it into a building. not about a commercial pilot during an emergency landing.

In which case, if it's a terrorist who can't control the airplane after the hull blows out (in theory), I'm not seeing the problem.

If you have two 3,000+ hour pilots in front (as most airlines do), I'm sure they'll be able to manage with a few holes in the hull of a turbojet with massive hydraulically-operated control surfaces.

I and don't disagree. But my point is that a couple of angry hijackers won't.

In which case, if it's a terrorist who can't control the airplane after the hull blows out (in theory), I'm not seeing the problem.

i think he is saying an armed passenger can always shoot out the hull to keep terrorist from flying a plane into a building.

I and don't disagree. But my point is that a couple of angry hijackers won't.

Perhaps. I've never controlled a stricken airliner with part of its hull missing. :$

Also, I went back and reread the conversation and I had apparently placed you as saying something you didn't - that airline pilots couldn't land after a shootout.

You were saying that terrorists couldn't pilot it after a hull blowout. I'm not convinced either way of that (insufficient data), but I attacked you unfairly.

I apologize.

:$

I apologize.


Nah. No need to apologize. The point of NSG is to have silly arguments.

Hats off though to the better man. /hatsoff/

Perhaps. I've never controlled a stricken airliner with part of its hull missing. :$

Also, I went back and reread the conversation and I had apparently placed you as saying something you didn't - that airline pilots couldn't land after a shootout.

You were saying that terrorists couldn't pilot it after a hull blowout. I'm not convinced either way of that (insufficient data), but I attacked you unfairly.

I apologize.

:$

Nah. No need to apologize. The point of NSG is to have silly arguments.

Hats off though to the better man. /hatsoff/



NONONNO None of this apologizing crap this goes to thunderDOME.

I think we could spend all afternoon, and everyone after it flying planes into the ground full of passengers, and still not get to the death toll which resulted from 9-11.

2794 confirmed dead in 9-11. The typical 747 carries 416 passengers, not counting cabin crew. 7 fully loaded 747s is all you need to crash to exceed 9-11s death toll by a good margin. There are 28,000 flights daily, in the United States alone. Give me an afternoon and a few dozen well armed passengers properly placed in various flights, and in the space of an afternoon, I could make the death toll from 9-11 look like a picnic.

2794 confirmed dead in 9-11. The typical 747 carries 416 passengers, not counting cabin crew. 7 fully loaded 747s is all you need to crash to exceed 9-11s death toll by a good margin. There are 28,000 flights daily, in the United States alone. Give me an afternoon and a few dozen well armed passengers properly placed in various flights, and in the space of an afternoon, I could make the death toll from 9-11 look like a picnic.

But then maybe no Iraq. Which has had a significant death toll.

Now, you can say we would have done that anyway. But if it had been a TWA 800 type event, then I doubt there would have been the political impetus for it.

Well if it's mythbusters - the people who don't understand how I beams work - then it must be true.

Yes, because experimental results lie. They pressurized a plane such that the pressure inside the plane and outside the plane would be equivalent to a plane at cruising altitude and then shot a gun at a window. All that happened is a tiny hole appeared in the window and the pressure dropped rapidly in the plane with the result that stuff blew around. I think they did a few such tests on the hull of the plane and either the results were the same or nothing happened because the bullet didn't penetrate, I can't remember. It wasn't anything spectacular like explosive decompression which happens for reasons which do not include small holes in the plane.

Also, Mythbusters credibility >>>> credibility of person on internet

edit: here's an episode recap describing the experiment and results: http://www.tv.com/mythbusters/explosive-decompression-frog-giggin-rear-axle/episode/296711/recap.html?tag=overview;recap
It took more than a bullet hole to tear a hole in the fuselage. It took more than a "small explosion" even.

NONONNO None of this apologizing crap this goes to thunderDOME.

*thumbs through the book*

Ok, G&D's right, unfortunately. It says right here "all arguments which appear to be ending amicably and do not simply whither away from time must end at the thunderdome."

*thumbs through the book*

Ok, G&D's right, unfortunately. It says right here "all arguments which appear to be ending amicably and do not simply whither away from time must end at the thunderdome."

and since i called the rule i get to profit from the betting

and since i called the rule i get to profit from the betting

*thumbs through the book*

Nope, that's not in here.

But then maybe no Iraq. Which has had a significant death toll.
Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. At all.

*thumbs through the book*

Nope, that's not in here.

check again, in my new updated edition.

check again, in my new updated edition.

The unofficial one you "updated" yourself?

Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. At all.

well sep 11 was an excuse to invade Iraq.

The unofficial one you "updated" yourself?

according to the new book i make it official.

well sep 11 was an excuse to invade Iraq.

I thought the excuse was that Iraq was an imminent threat and had weapons of mass destruction it was planning on using on the US or some other such nonsense.

I thought the excuse was that Iraq was an imminent threat and had weapons of mass destruction it was planning on using on the US or some other such nonsense.

that was another one. Sep 11 was a general make Americans do what ever the pres says rule.

Yes, because experimental results lie. They pressurized a plane such that the pressure inside the plane and outside the plane would be equivalent to a plane at cruising altitude and then shot a gun at a window. All that happened is a tiny hole appeared in the window and the pressure dropped rapidly in the plane with the result that stuff blew around. I think they did a few such tests on the hull of the plane and either the results were the same or nothing happened because the bullet didn't penetrate, I can't remember. It wasn't anything spectacular like explosive decompression which happens for reasons which do not include small holes in the plane.


So they pressurized the inside of the plane to the equiv. of 7000ft, and depressurized the outside to about 20,000ft. And then they shot a 9mm through the fuselage.

'Cos if you are going to do an experiment, do it properly. Ring integrity is more than a matter of the delta in pressure.

So they pressurized the inside of the plane to the equiv. of 7000ft, and depressurized the outside to about 20,000ft. And then they shot a 9mm through the fuselage.

'Cos if you are going to do an experiment, do it properly. Ring integrity is more than a matter of the delta in pressure.

*has a BSc in Physics*

Really? So the difference in pressure isn't what matters? How does it make a difference what the actual pressures are so long as the relative pressures remain the same. The net force will be the same.

Unless you're going to argue that it has something to do with temperature, in which case this is not at all what your post implies.

Of course my favorite mythbusters - and the only one I have seen - is where the ginger bastard drills a hole right through the web of an aluminum I-beam and uses it as a towing rig. For some reason he seems surprised that the web tears itself out and he mumbles something about 'should have done the math' or someshit.

How about knowing something banana? Just because you wear that stupid french hat doesn't make you smart.

*has a BSc in Physics*

Really? So the difference in pressure isn't what matters? How does it make a difference what the actual pressures are so long as the relative pressures remain the same. The net force will be the same.

Unless you're going to argue that it has something to do with temperature, in which case this is not at all what your post implies.

No, of course it has nothing to do with the pressure. But it does have something to do with the actually structural properties of the ring.

*has an M.C.E. in structural engineering*

Edit: Apply prandlt's punch problem to a ring. And then you'll see why it is more than just the delta in pressure. You can't zero out the strength of the ring material. Big thing with submarine design.

Of course my favorite mythbusters - and the only one I have seen - is where the ginger bastard drills a hole right through the web of an aluminum I-beam and uses it as a towing rig. For some reason he seems surprised that the web tears itself out and he mumbles something about 'should have done the math' or someshit.

How about knowing something banana? Just because you wear that stupid french hat doesn't make you smart.

The "ginger" doesn't wear the beret.

No, of course it has nothing to do with the pressure. But it does have something to do with the actually structural properties of the ring.

*has an M.C.E. in structural engineering*
And what are those structural properties of the ring that make it respond differently to absolute pressures than relative pressure?

Also, you're the one who made it an issue of pressure. If it's not an issue of pressure then what is it? Further, if it's not an issue of absolute pressure, how did they do the experiment incorrectly by pressurizing a plane at sea level in a manner which gave it an equivalent pressure difference?

The "ginger" doesn't wear the beret.

your a red head ?

your a red head ?

No, I'm just pointing out that the guy with the red hair on that show (Adam) is not the one who wears the beret. Jamie wears the beret. Unless he was referring to Kari... who also doesn't wear a beret and isn't always a redhead.

No, I'm just pointing out that the guy with the red hair on that show (Adam) is not the one who wears the beret. Jamie wears the beret. Unless he was referring to Kari... who also doesn't wear a beret and isn't always a redhead.

well anyways red heads need to rule the world.

And what are those structural properties of the ring that make it respond differently to absolute pressures than relative pressure?

Also, you're the one who made it an issue of pressure. If it's not an issue of pressure then what is it? Further, if it's not an issue of absolute pressure, how did they do the experiment incorrectly by pressurizing a plane at sea level in a manner which gave it an equivalent pressure difference?

I mean't it's not to do with the difference in pressure. Not once you punch a hole. Poke a hole in things at different pressures (not relative differences) then different things happen depending upon the physical properties of what you are punching a hole in. Underlying subgrade and all that. Elastic halfspaces.

It's been years for me, but this is elementary stuff.

'Gun nuts'. Says it all.

What about people who are allergic to nuts, I wonder.

I mean't it's not to do with the difference in pressure. Not once you punch a hole. Poke a hole in things at different pressures (not relative differences) then different things happen depending upon the physical properties of what you are punching a hole in. Underlying subgrade and all that. Elastic halfspaces.

It's been years for me, but this is elementary stuff.
I find this incredibly hard to believe. Why would the absolute pressure matter that much when it comes to a metal? It's not a gas, they're not *that* compressible and even if they were, you're pushing from both sides such that the relative pressure ends up the same.

Also, this punch problem you referred to had no references I could access apart from journals (which I can't read since I'm not on campus) but it seems to have more to do with airflow over something which has a hole in it and relatively little to do with large holes appearing from small ones. I even found a website describing possible punctures to space shuttles/stations which don't seem to mention the likelihood of large portions of shuttles ripping off when surrounded by no pressure at all (which is a larger pressure difference than aircraft would encounter). It seemed to have more to do with an earlier mention that it would be difficult to steer the craft, though I fail to see how a bullet-sized hole could affect the aerodynamics of a craft that much once the pressure has equalised (think of opening the car window a tiny bit, you don't get too much of a draft, just a bit of whistling except a larger car and a smaller hole).

I could also point out that there are incidents where people *have* fired guns in planes and put holes in the fuselage without incident (i.e. without large portions of the plane going missing). Will look for original news sources in the morning.

edit: also, meant does not have an apostrophe. You're not contracting anything.

I find this incredibly hard to believe. Why would the absolute pressure matter that much when it comes to a metal? It's not a gas, they're not *that* compressible and even if they were, you're pushing from both sides such that the relative pressure ends up the same.

Also, this punch problem you referred to had no references I could access apart from journals (which I can't read since I'm not on campus) but it seems to have more to do with airflow over something which has a hole in it and relatively little to do with large holes appearing from small ones. I even found a website describing possible punctures to space shuttles/stations which don't seem to mention the likelihood of large portions of shuttles ripping off when surrounded by no pressure at all (which is a larger pressure difference than aircraft would encounter). It seemed to have more to do with an earlier mention that it would be difficult to steer the craft, though I fail to see how a bullet-sized hole could affect the aerodynamics of a craft that much once the pressure has equalised (think of opening the car window a tiny bit, you don't get too much of a draft, just a bit of whistling except a larger car and a smaller hole).

I could also point out that there are incidents where people *have* fired guns in planes and put holes in the fuselage without incident (i.e. without large portions of the plane going missing). Will look for original news sources in the morning.

edit: also, meant does not have an apostrophe. You're not contracting anything.

Prandtl's punch problem is the classic solution to the puncturing of a flat material lying over an elastic half space. Ask one of you professors.

But now you don't believe me that things will act differently depending upon the absolute pressures instead of solely the difference in pressure. Well I'll tell you this - so you can do an experiment - go blow up a balloon and pop it with a pin. Then go to the swimming pool and blow up a balloon, but this time full of water - while underwater - then pop it. The results will be different.

The absolute pressure on the exterior will make the 'skin' of the ring either more rigid or less rigid, and the physical properties of that skin will determine how it acts; depending on the conditions.

Thank you for the grammar correction.

Edit: Try Prandtl. Not Prandlt. Like I said it's been years. But it is the basis of many classic engineering solutions, and the rigidity of the material doesn't cancel out.

Or actually, just blow a balloon up an punch the hole under water. It will behave differently. The skin will be more 'rigid'.

Likewise, at lower pressures more rigid skins become less 'rigid'.

So, let me get this straight?

Someone saying allowing, say, a group of 5-10 trained people willing to die for their cause to bring their guns to an airplane would somehow increase flight safety?


Untrained passengers might manage a few kills, including bystanders in panic, but against co-ordinated surprise attack I'd bet my money on the terrorist group willing to die for their cause.


edit:
Or actually, just blow a balloon up an punch the hole under water. It will behave differently. The skin will be more 'rigid'.

Likewise, at lower pressures more rigid skins become less 'rigid'.
Add a bit of scotch tape on an air balloon and pin prick through both: The balloon decompresses slowly without ever exploding.

My point is that I don't see how sufficiently sturdy air craft hull could rapidly explode when fired at by a handgun, the pressure difference between the interior and outside air really isn't that much: Equivalent to 200-400 grams per square centimeter.

Yes, a huge section tends to blow away once depressurized. It's part of depressurization. I would refer you to the hawaii air incident. (Or ring theory).

Hawiian Air went how it did, because the damn aircraft was over twenty years old, had been refurbished several times (it was a used plane, HA was the third or fourth owner), the skin was beginning to crack (Similar, in fact, to the Eastern Crash-a 727 going down because of metal fatigue).

When we hiblow planes on the line, sometimes you get a whistling where some idiot forgot to put a rivet in the skin..and once, we had an accident with a 737 and rivets that weren't bucked in the area of the Radome-it sounded like a machine-gun for about a second, and the holes had to be re-drilled and filled (this time properly). Notably, the skin didn't come off, even at sixteen and something PSI. (Typical airliner in flight is pressurized to around eight.) Pressurized aircraft have had bullet-size holes in them before without doing the Convertible Airliner trick-it actually takes a LOT more damage than you're proposing to even get a serious depressurization.

When the un-bucked fasteners in the JAL/Mt. Fuji 747 crash let go in the 48 section, the passengers and crew were still pressurized enough to write letters to their families-the plane lost ALL hydraulic pressure from that one and was uncontrollable-they were in the air for hours, knowing they were going to die. The pressure bulkhead still held enough pressure after blowing out the hydraulics to keep those people awake as the plane just kind of drifted into the mountain. (oh, and it wasn't a couple rivets, it was a couple full ROWS of rivets.)

Also: British Airways had a problem with a 757 a few years ago-seems one of their ground-crew mechanics put undersize fastners into the windscreen. THAT time, the convection when the window blew out was enough to suck the pilot out of the plane. (He lived-aircrewmen aboard held him by the legs at more than 300 mph!) Notably, the passengers suffered no ill effects, and didn't even know there was a problem until the bird made an emergency landing. The section that let go was a couple cubic feet of homogenous lexan coated glass, it let go in the shape it was formed in, and did so because NONE of the fasteners were the correct size. It wasnt' a pinhole, or even a thumb-size hole. To get the big, flashy hollywood effect, it took a hole that was a couple feet wide and a couple feet tall.

a gun THAT big, well, you're not concealing it.



Oh come, on that's totally ipse dixit. We can go back and forth on that forever and never get a satisfactory answer. In my experience people who own guns do tend to now how to use them.

There's always the idiots out there, man. The guy who leaves his pistol in the Oven, the couple who leave their piece on the living room end-table for the kids to find, and all those folks who leave 'em where inquisitive, ignorant little hands can get after them, play with them, and shoot somebody.


Hijacked well before NYC. Might well have gone the way of TWA 800. And that would have saved a million Iraqi lives. So yes lots of hijackings would have been worth it.

In any case, don't be so dogmatic.

Lots of Hijackings might occur, or might not occur with armed passengers. The hijackers in the 9/11 case had the advantage of attacking people who've been conditioned not to fight back-a coffee cup is more dangerous than a Box-knife even in untrained hands, and there's coffee POTS (Hot liquid) in the galley of a transcontinental flight, fire-extinguishers (easily got to, required by NTSB and FAA regs), and a whole host of blunt objects that could break bones, blind, incapacitate, or kill in close quarters if the attendant only thought of it.

Hijacking worked, because people on planes were conditioned to be passive toward violence...'cause that's what schools have taught kids year after year after year. Having guns, or not having guns, wouldn't have mattered with most of those people. They expected a trip to Cuba, maybe somewhere else, or to be good little hostages until the SEAL team shows up, they didn't expect to be components of a guided missile.

People probably won't make THAT mistake again, guns or not.

Edit: Apply prandlt's punch problem to a ring. And then you'll see why it is more than just the delta in pressure. You can't zero out the strength of the ring material. Big thing with submarine design.
What you say is right qualitatively, but only without taking into account the practical situation, specific figures and structures.

Airplanes use a structure that puts the majority of structural loads on the frames and stringers, rather than on the skin. The skin is just too thin, and mostly just carries the internal pressure's tensile load. I.e., the airframe is designed in such a way that it could work without skin at all; its strength just adds to the reserve.

While a bullet hole can act as a stress point, its round shape is the least dangerous stress point possible, and, in a noncritical part, doesn't endanger the structural integrity.
In such a case, the only force acting against the airframe is the pressure of the airstream - which directly depends on the hole size. In this case, insufficient to expand if the skin is any good. Cracks are far more dangerous, with their ability to spread.


It's also qualitatively correct that it's not only pressure difference that matters, but with an airplane we have a simple pressure vessel with very low pressures. These few psi don't make a difference in the big scheme of things, not even enough to act as a primary support against buckling. In other words, an airplane doesn't rely on its internal pressure to provide rigidity, but rather on its structure.

As for the anecdotal evidence, IIRC there are no documented cases of explosive depressurization caused by gunfire.

Privatize airports. That will solve these problems.

Leave your gun at home. Bags get stolen and lost all the time. With the exception of the Air marshal no one needs a gun least of all at an airport.

Leave your gun at home. Bags get stolen and lost all the time. With the exception of the Air marshal no one needs a gun least of all at an airport.

but it will be on my holster so i can shot the guy who steals my bag.

Prandtl's punch problem is the classic solution to the puncturing of a flat material lying over an elastic half space. Ask one of you professors.

My professors are astronomers. Most of them probably don't care about this. To be honest, I don't care much about it either, except that you're wrong and won't admit it.

But now you don't believe me that things will act differently depending upon the absolute pressures instead of solely the difference in pressure. Well I'll tell you this - so you can do an experiment - go blow up a balloon and pop it with a pin. Then go to the swimming pool and blow up a balloon, but this time full of water - while underwater - then pop it. The results will be different.

The absolute pressure on the exterior will make the 'skin' of the ring either more rigid or less rigid, and the physical properties of that skin will determine how it acts; depending on the conditions.

Wouldn't this be more likely related to the viscosity of water? Water probably doesn't move out of a balloon as quickly as air does, you can see this when you put a pin hole in a balloon filled with air or with water on the surface.

Edit: Try Prandtl. Not Prandlt. Like I said it's been years. But it is the basis of many classic engineering solutions, and the rigidity of the material doesn't cancel out.

I noticed that when I entered it in a search.

Also, people have put bullet holes in airplanes and there are a number of sources discussing the fact that this is a myth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3039583.stm

Worst case scenario is someone takes out a window. A bullet to the fuselage results in the air escaping, not an explosive decompression. Also, here's a case where a pilot accidentally shot a hole in the cockpit: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-03-28-us-air-repair_N.htm what do you know, the plane didn't explosively decompress.

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??

Only concern I might have is the recently passed legislation by the state, whether or not this was included in the law, it might seemingly contradict the law.




I just think it's plain up stupid to permit folks to carry guns in airports. Under no circumstances would I permit it. So, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the right to pack heat in a place with planes and booze. It doesn't exist.

but it will be on my holster so i can shot the guy who steals my bag.
I can certainly see a use for a machine gun at the baggage claim. People there are far too pushy.

On topic, though, once you declare an area to be "gun free", you do make it a much easier place to commit a crime with a gun.

I can certainly see a use for a machine gun at the baggage claim. People there are far too pushy.

On topic, though, once you declare an area to be "gun free", you do make it a much easier place to commit a crime with a gun.

Id say you gave me an Idea but armed robbery isn't my thing.

A federal appeals court has dismissed a Georgia gun group's lawsuit seeking to allow firearms in parts of the world's busiest airport. I am not serious that this is a serious blow to Second Amendment rights.

The group GeorgiaCarry.org (http://www.georgiacarry.org/) sued after the city of Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport banned guns from even unsecured areas in the terminals.

That was a response to a Georgia law passed last summer that allows people with permits to take their guns into restaurants and state parks and on public transportation.

A federal judge had already thrown out GeorgiaCarry's lawsuit, and a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his decision Thursday.

Gun rights advocates say now they may try to get the law changed to specifically allow guns in the airport.

linky (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/03-12-2009/20090312125006_06.html)

I'm sorry but IMHO the gun nuts are being ridiculous. Airports are a reasonable place to restrict the carrying of guns.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals brief unpublished decision affirming the district court may be found here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815571.pdf).

Various document including the Complaint by Georgia Carry (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/complaint.pdf) and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's decision (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/Doc%2050%20Order%20granting%20MJOP.pdf) dismissing the case may be found here (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/).

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??
well its not as stupid as the people who go to court to have mr obama declared ineligible to be president because he was really born in kenya.

where do they get the money to pursue such useless lawsuits? doesnt anyone tell them that they are wasting their time and money?

where do they get the money to pursue such useless lawsuits? doesnt anyone tell them that they are wasting their time and money?
The NRA has gets lots of money from gun nuts.

The NRA has gets lots of money from gun nuts.

Gun nuts aren't the only ones who contribute money to the NRA. There are also people who feel they represent values they support - personal liberty, upholding the constitution, stuff like that.

Gun nuts aren't the only ones who contribute money to the NRA. There are also people who feel they represent values they support - personal liberty, upholding the constitution, stuff like that.

the 2nd amendment doesn't count as part of the Constitution.

the 2nd amendment doesn't count as part of the Constitution.

You mean when you make an amendment to something, it doesn't become part of it? Here I've been classifying things wrong all these years.

The NRA has gets lots of money from gun nuts.
they might has get money but even they must recognize a loser then they see it. why waste their money on a case that has no chance to succeed when there are other suits that might win?

Gun nuts aren't the only ones who contribute money to the NRA. There are also people who feel they represent values they support - personal liberty, upholding the constitution, stuff like that.
but mostly its the gun nuts.

there are plenty of them after all.

they might has get money but even they must recognize a loser then they see it. why waste their money on a case that has no chance to succeed when there are other suits that might win?
Nothing in the US is a waste of money if you have enough money to through at it.

Gun nuts aren't the only ones who contribute money to the NRA. There are also people who feel they represent values they support - personal liberty, upholding the constitution, stuff like that.

Haha, yeah, sure, whatever.

but mostly its the gun nuts.

there are plenty of them after all.

Granted. However, the NRA serves a very useful purpose, much as the ACLU does. They spend a lot of time charging windmills, but they fight fights that no one else is willing to fight.

As the OP said though, an airport is a reasonable place to restrict the ownership of guns. There is sufficient armed security to take care of anything that may happen (unless it's very very *very* well coordinated, in which case a few bystanders standing around with guns probably won't help), so there is little reason for civilians to be packing since sufficient firepower is already available.

On topic, though, once you declare an area to be "gun free", you do make it a much easier place to commit a crime with a gun.

That depends entirely on how tight security and screening is. If by "gun free" it means you will be searched and stripped of all firearms before being allowed to enter, by a professionally trained, comprehensive, and well armed security team, committing a crime with a gun in the area becomes much harder.

Haha, yeah, sure, whatever.

Yes, upholding the constitution and safeguarding personal liberty are both such laughing matters. In fact, only nuts would want to do these things!

How silly.

That depends entirely on how tight security and screening is. If by "gun free" it means you will be searched and stripped of all firearms before being allowed to enter, by a professionally trained, comprehensive, and well armed security team, committing a crime with a gun in the area becomes much harder.
Let's consider reality as a measure of how tight security and screening is, rather than launching off into a discussion of how it might be. Do you expect that the public will be searched and screened by a trained security team, as they enter the airport and before they enter the 'restricted' areas? It doesn't happen now -- not in the USA, anyway.

I don't expect to see changes that will really tighten security in the non-sterile areas. So the alternative is that the area is not secured, not gun-free, and only folks that obey the law will leave their guns in the parking lot. Thus my conclusion is still a good one. A "gun-free" area is still a good place to commit a crime with a gun.

Granted. However, the NRA serves a very useful purpose, much as the ACLU does. They spend a lot of time charging windmills, but they fight fights that no one else is willing to fight.

As the OP said though, an airport is a reasonable place to restrict the ownership of guns. There is sufficient armed security to take care of anything that may happen (unless it's very very *very* well coordinated, in which case a few bystanders standing around with guns probably won't help), so there is little reason for civilians to be packing since sufficient firepower is already available.
i know it does.

but if i were an nra member (and if they are involved in this suit) i would be pissed at them wasting valuable resources on stupid lawsuits when there are needed interventions elsewhere.

but if i were an nra member (and if they are involved in this suit) i would be pissed at them wasting valuable resources on stupid lawsuits when there are needed interventions elsewhere.

I am a member, but even if they are involved, it wouldn't bother me, for a very specific reason:

*Any* attempt to restrict firearms should be brought to bear on its merits. We have to know if the benefit is sufficient to justify the restriction of civil liberties. The NRA may charge a lot of windmills, but by stomping around like an elephant, they should make the legislators stop and think (hopefully): can this law stand up in court?

I don't expect to see changes that will really tighten security in the non-sterile areas. So the alternative is that the area is not secured, not gun-free, and only folks that obey the law will leave their guns in the parking lot. Thus my conclusion is still a good one. A "gun-free" area is still a good place to commit a crime with a gun.

Then it's a question of what the term "gun-free" means. If it means nobody, then I suppose your definition fits. If it doesn't include security teams, then it's a different story. I recall seeing security guards on patrol at the Hong Kong airport carrying HK MP5s in the premises outside the secured zone (boarding lounge), although I don't remember if they were wearing armored vests under their uniforms.

Very up in the air really, depending on how you define gun free and what sort of security you have in the area.

Yes, upholding the constitution and safeguarding personal liberty are both such laughing matters. In fact, only nuts would want to do these things!

How silly.
Red herring. That has nothing to do with the NRA or its mission. People who want to support the upholding of the constitution and protection of liberties donate to an unbiased organization who actually does those things like the ACLU. The NRA only cares about the second amendment, the rest be damned. But nice try there skippy.

Red herring. That has nothing to do with the NRA or its mission. People who want to support the upholding of the constitution and protection of liberties donate to an unbiased organization who actually does those things like the ACLU. The NRA only cares about the second amendment, the rest be damned. But nice try there skippy.
protecting the 2nd ammendment through lobbying and lawsuits is part of upholding the constitution. that they dont care to deal with the rest of the constitution is no more damning than a charity that only works on homelessness and leaves all other society's problems to someone else.

protecting the 2nd ammendment through lobbying and lawsuits is part of upholding the constitution. that they dont care to deal with the rest of the constitution is no more damning than a charity that only works on homelessness and leaves all other society's problems to someone else.

Except the NRA isn't just 2nd Amendment protection, that is only a consequence of being a pro-gun proliferation lobby.
And that has nothing to do with Gallosims logical fallacy of trying to make the NRA look like some defender of the Constitution.

Except the NRA isn't just 2nd Amendment protection, that is only a consequence of being a pro-gun proliferation lobby.
And that has nothing to do with Gallosims logical fallacy of trying to make the NRA look like some defender of the Constitution.
true.

its gun boosterism. its gun and hunting safety training. its... im sure something else but how would i know since i am not now nor will i ever be a member.

but it is no more wrong for the nra to be invovled in gun law debates/lobbying/lawsuits than it is for NOW to be involved in debates/lobbying/lawsuits about abortion laws.

The question i keep seeing people ask is why would you need a gun in an airport when the question should be what is the rational for taking away law abiding citizens right to bear guns in an insecure part of the airport.

I have a conceal carry permit and do so on occasion. Why should i go to jail for 10 years if i drop off a friend at the airport while carrying it?If your going to bring a gun into an airport with intentions of shooting anyone does it really matter if guns were banned in the lobby, the parking garage or all the way to the property line next to the McDonalds down the street?

Im hearing arguments that guards at the airport should substitute the need to carry guns. Using that logic, if we have an abundant neighborhood police presence then a citizen shouldn't have a right to carry a pistol anywhere else either.

The right to carry firearms isnt a question of why do you want/need to, its what right does the government have to say you cant. Id need the government to show me how a law preventing firearms in airports will cut down on all of the airport lobby shootings that would happen en mass otherwise...oh wait.

Then it's a question of what the term "gun-free" means. If it means nobody, then I suppose your definition fits. If it doesn't include security teams, then it's a different story. I recall seeing security guards on patrol at the Hong Kong airport carrying HK MP5s in the premises outside the secured zone (boarding lounge), although I don't remember if they were wearing armored vests under their uniforms.

Very up in the air really, depending on how you define gun free and what sort of security you have in the area.
Not that much up in the air. We are talking about the Atlanta Hartsfield airport and not any in Hong Kong, New Delhi, Nairobi, or Berlin. Local police carry sidearms but, as local police are over-extended almost everywhere, quite a bit of shooting could happen before anyone could get to the scene and do any sort of protecting.

The question i keep seeing people ask is why would you need a gun in an airport when the question should be what is the rational for taking away law abiding citizens right to bear guns in an insecure part of the airport.

I have a conceal carry permit and do so on occasion. Why should i go to jail for 10 years if i drop off a friend at the airport while carrying it?If your going to bring a gun into an airport with intentions of shooting anyone does it really matter if guns were banned in the lobby, the parking garage or all the way to the property line next to the McDonalds down the street?

Im hearing arguments that guards at the airport should substitute the need to carry guns. Using that logic, if we have an abundant neighborhood police presence then a citizen shouldn't have a right to carry a pistol anywhere else either.

The right to carry firearms isnt a question of why do you want/need to, its what right does the government have to say you cant. Id need the government to show me how a law preventing firearms in airports will cut down on all of the airport lobby shootings that would happen en mass otherwise...oh wait.
The good thing is that our legislature is interested in the problem and has the opportunity and motivation to change the law and make it apply to the airport ban.

Except the NRA isn't just 2nd Amendment protection, that is only a consequence of being a pro-gun proliferation lobby.
And that has nothing to do with Gallosims logical fallacy of trying to make the NRA look like some defender of the Constitution.

Lets see, the NRA is trying to defend the constitution in support of its own interests, much like the ACLU defends the constitution in support of its own interests, and much like Jehovah's Witnesses defended the constitution all those years ago in support of its own interests.

Any way you slice it, everyone is looking out for the issues that they care about and affect them. Diminishing the NRA (or any other group) because you disagree with how they view life does not diminish the fact that they do, in fact, seek to protect the constitution.

This is a silly thread.

much like the ACLU defends the constitution in support of its own interests
Those ends being what? The ACLU defends the Constitution for the sake of defending the Constitution. Their most famous cases are those that piss off the religious right, but they have almost as often been on the same side.

Those ends being what? The ACLU defends the Constitution for the sake of defending the Constitution. Their most famous cases are those that piss off the religious right, but they have almost as often been on the same side.

Those interests being protecting their own liberties, rights, privileges, and way of life - the same way the NRA does. They're most concerned about freedom of speech and privacy issues. It's good that they do this, don't get me wrong, but they are not concerned about the second amendment and do not address it. The NRA is and does.

First Amendment is not greater than the second. Nor is it greater than the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.

Those ends being what? The ACLU defends the Constitution for the sake of defending the Constitution. Their most famous cases are those that piss off the religious right, but they have almost as often been on the same side.

when the ACLU does a vigorous of a job defending the 2nd Amendment as do every other amendment we can merge we can merge them with the NRA.

Interesting case. Obviously, nobody wants to limit the right of passengers to bring firearms with them into their luggage. At first that was what I thought was going on and I was all worked up about it. After reading the case, I think tha tthe Georgian legislature needs to be a little more clear with its use of language when it supposedly tries to protect the right to bear arms in nonsterile parts of airports.

I really do not care if people are legitimately armed in nonsterile portions of the airport. I am always armed when I am in my car, my office, and when I am in my primary home. However, I have friends and colleagues that are rights maximizing citizens who are armed as much as they can be and I respect that. If I had to weigh in one way or the other, I would lean in the direction of the right to carry firearms. I am not too worked up about it though.

it was perfectly clear in the Georgian dialect of English.

it was perfectly clear in the Georgian dialect of English.

That can barely be called "English", really.

Those interests being protecting their own liberties, rights, privileges, and way of life - the same way the NRA does. They're most concerned about freedom of speech and privacy issues. It's good that they do this, don't get me wrong, but they are not concerned about the second amendment and do not address it. The NRA is and does.

First Amendment is not greater than the second. Nor is it greater than the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.

the reason the ACLU doesn't devote resources to the 2nd amendment issues is because other organizations already do.

The NRA has gets lots of money from gun nuts.

I don't see anything about the NRA being involved in this. And judging from their positions in the past, I personally doubt they'd take this case.

the reason the ACLU doesn't devote resources to the 2nd amendment issues is because other organizations already do.

Would you care to elaborate on why the ACLU does not believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right?

From their own website: "Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. "

It's not merely a matter of not wasting resources supporting one amendment or another - it's a matter of actively denying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

the reason the ACLU doesn't devote resources to the 2nd amendment issues is because other organizations already do.

Not really. ACLU's official position:

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Those interests being protecting their own liberties, rights, privileges, and way of life - the same way the NRA does. They're most concerned about freedom of speech and privacy issues. It's good that they do this, don't get me wrong, but they are not concerned about the second amendment and do not address it. The NRA is and does.

First Amendment is not greater than the second. Nor is it greater than the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.

Um. To say the ACLU is just concerned (or "most concerned") about freedom of speech and privacy issues is simply untrue. The ACLU does not take a position on gun control, but it vigorously defends the rest of the Bill of Rights -- especially the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments-- as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and other Constitutional provisions. See, e.g., link (http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/21419res20051115.html)

Um. To say the ACLU is just concerned (or "most concerned") about freedom of speech and privacy issues is simply untrue. The ACLU does not take a position on gun control, but it vigorously defends the rest of the Bill of Rights -- especially the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments-- as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and other Constitutional provisions. See, e.g., link (http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/21419res20051115.html)

They do take a position on the 2nd Amendment, as several have just posted.

They don't agree with Heller.

Would you care to elaborate on why the ACLU does not believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right?

Why are you asking ME to elaborate on what THEY think?

Would you care to elaborate on why my favorite color is red?

They do take a position on the 2nd Amendment, as several have just posted.

They don't agree with Heller.

There's an objection to Heller than doesn't require any position whatsoever on the contents of the 2nd Amendment.

Why are you asking ME to elaborate on what THEY think?

Would you care to elaborate on why my favorite color is red?

You did say that the ACLU doesn't have a position on the 2nd Amendment. It's pretty clear that they absolutely do.

If you're going to make assertions, you should be prepared to show why they're true.

There's an objection to Heller than doesn't require any position whatsoever on the contents of the 2nd Amendment.

Their position is that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. That's a clear position based on the contents.

You did say that the ACLU doesn't have a position on the 2nd Amendment. It's pretty clear that they absolutely do.

If you're going to make assertions, you should be prepared to show why they're true.

An objecting to a particular ruling does not equate to a universal position. Merely saying "we think this case is wrong" does not equate to having a a codified position.

You're...um...you're not very good at this, are you?

An objecting to a particular ruling does not equate to a universal position. Merely saying "we think this case is wrong" does not equate to having a a codified position.

You're...um...you're not very good at this, are you?

The codified objection is an objection to the idea that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

They clearly and in specific words object to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

Maybe you can clear up the definition of "the people" as expressed in the First Amendment, vs. the definition of "the people" in the Second Amendment.

Their position is that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. That's a clear position based on the contents.

Since you've only given us one sentence to go on and no link to the context, I can only go by that one sentence. And you could read it as objecting to Heller based on the 14th Amendment.

Since you've only given us one sentence to go on and no link to the context, I can only go by that one sentence. And you could read it as objecting to Heller based on the 14th Amendment.

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

I dunno, preventing making hijacks easier?

That would be why they aren't allowed on planes. Are they not allowed past the security check point, or in airports at all?

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

Okay, in that case they're saying that it's a collective right. Considering the text of the Second Amendment (it's not even a damn sentence), this is not an outlandish interpretation.

Okay, in that case they're saying that it's a collective right. Considering the text of the Second Amendment (it's not even a damn sentence), this is not an outlandish interpretation.

If you believe that "the people" in the First Amendment is not the same "the people" in the Second, then it's not an outlandish interpretation.

Otherwise, if they mean the same "the people", the ACLU's interpretation is only a glaring and obvious attempt to deprive "the people" of an individual right.

Is the First Amendment an individual or collective right of "the people"?

Those interests being protecting their own liberties, rights, privileges, and way of life - the same way the NRA does. They're most concerned about freedom of speech and privacy issues. It's good that they do this, don't get me wrong, but they are not concerned about the second amendment and do not address it. The NRA is and does.

First Amendment is not greater than the second. Nor is it greater than the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.
1) Yes it is, that was the purpose for the second.
2) You are being obtuse in order to defend the NRA's constitution-be-damned pro-gun stance.
3) Remember where I say the only cases where we hear about the ACLU is when they piss off the religious right? Those are first amendment matters. That does not mean those are the only cases they are involved in.

If you believe that "the people" in the First Amendment is not the same "the people" in the Second, then it's not an outlandish interpretation.

Otherwise, if they mean the same "the people", the ACLU's interpretation is only a glaring and obvious attempt to deprive "the people" of an individual right.

Is the First Amendment an individual or collective right of "the people"?

The First Amendment doesn't have a qualifier. Never mind the fact that the first amendment doesn't mention "the people" until it talks about the right to assemble. If you want a relevant comparison, try the fourth.

1) Yes it is, that was the purpose for the second.
2) You are being obtuse in order to defend the NRA's constitution-be-damned pro-gun stance.
3) Remember where I say the only cases where we hear about the ACLU is when they piss off the religious right? Those are first amendment matters. That does not mean those are the only cases they are involved in.

The First Amendment doesn't have a qualifier.

What about the time the ACLU offends almost everyone ?
Do they get called free speech nuts when they defend Man Boy Love Association right to publish a how to rape little boys kit ?

What about the time the ACLU offends almost everyone ?
Do they get called free speech nuts when they defend Man Boy Love Association right to publish a how to rape little boys kit ?

People have the right to write completely absurd shit. Maybe I should see about the NRA and supporting people publishing how to make guns fully automatic.

What about the time the ACLU offends almost everyone ?
Do they get called free speech nuts when they defend Man Boy Love Association right to publish a how to rape little boys kit ?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

Looks like they defend NAMBLA because some ACLU people are members of both organizations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

Looks like they defend NAMBLA because some ACLU people are members of both organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

Looks like they defend NAMBLA because some ACLU people are members of both organizations.

well then. the solution is clear.
Replace the ACLU with the NRA.
case closed. NEXT...

People have the right to write completely absurd shit. Maybe I should see about the NRA and supporting people publishing how to make guns fully automatic.

call the NRA gun nuts, but do not call the ACLU free speech nuts correct ?

yes but you still call the NRA gun nuts, but do not call the ACLU free speech nuts correct ?
I am afraid you may be illiterate.

I am afraid you may be illiterate.

just had a saty up writing alll my papers i was supposed to do during spring break last night session and waiting for the caffeine to blow through so i can sleep session.

Would you care to elaborate on why the ACLU does not believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right?

From their own website: "Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. "

It's not merely a matter of not wasting resources supporting one amendment or another - it's a matter of actively denying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

Depends on what you mean by "actively." They have not taking any position in any litigation or before any government body regarding the 2nd Amendment.



Um. To say the ACLU is just concerned (or "most concerned") about freedom of speech and privacy issues is simply untrue. The ACLU does not take a position on gun control, but it vigorously defends the rest of the Bill of Rights -- especially the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments-- as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and other Constitutional provisions. See, e.g., link (http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/21419res20051115.html)

They do take a position on the 2nd Amendment, as several have just posted.

They don't agree with Heller.

Note the differences between what I said (highlighted in red) and your counter-claim (also highlighted in red).

The ACLU takes no position on gun control issues and have not advocated any position on the Second Amendment.

If you believe that "the people" in the First Amendment is not the same "the people" in the Second, then it's not an outlandish interpretation.

Otherwise, if they mean the same "the people", the ACLU's interpretation is only a glaring and obvious attempt to deprive "the people" of an individual right.

Is the First Amendment an individual or collective right of "the people"?

Meh.

The villany and alleged fallacious thinking you attribute to the ACLU is misplaced.

Until Heller, it was the nigh unanimous opinion of the federal courts that the Second Amendment was not an individual right and no federal court had ever struck down a gun control law as violating the Second Amendment.

I agree with you that Heller was correct and the prior caselaw was wrong as to whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that conclusion is far from as obvious as you imply.

Regardless, the ACLU never took any position in any litigation or lobbying regarding the Second Amendment.

What about the time the ACLU offends almost everyone ?
Do they get called free speech nuts when they defend Man Boy Love Association right to publish a how to rape little boys kit ?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

Looks like they defend NAMBLA because some ACLU people are members of both organizations.

Utter bullshit and irrelevant. Are all Republicans secretly gay because of Larry Craig?

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

Here is a past post on this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9087173&postcount=125)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)

End this bullshit attack on the ACLU.

EDIT: These are old links from a prior post and I haven't checked that they all work. Regardless, I think my point stands.

Utter bullshit and irrelevant. Are all Republicans secretly gay because of Larry Craig?Yes

The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.


End this bullshit attack on the ACLU.

My target was society. Why is the NRA bunch of gun nuts for defending the right to own guns every single inch they can?
but people (other then Bill O'rieley)don't call the ACLU free speech nuts for defending free speech every single inch possible?

Yes

My target was society. Why is the NRA bunch of gun nuts for defending the right to own guns every single inch they can?
but people (other then Bill O'rieley)don't call the ACLU free speech nuts for defending free speech every single inch possible?

Because they call them much nastier things and make childish, unoriginal names for the ACLU out of the organizations own initials?

My target was society. Why is the NRA bunch of gun nuts for defending the right to own guns every single inch they can?
but people (other then Bill O'rieley)don't call the ACLU free speech nuts for defending free speech every single inch possible?

To be clear, I wasn't really attacking your post AND the only ones I have called "gun nuts" were the plaintiffs in the OP case.

But, for the sake of argument, there is a difference between an organization devoted to a single issue -- absolute protection of gun rights -- and an organization that works on a wide range of constitutional issues (with the exception of gun rights).

Because they call them much nastier things and make childish, unoriginal names for the ACLU out of the organizations own initials?

really, I haven't paid attention to that. the ACLU is one of the few organizations i will donate money too.

Who other then the crazy fascist nuts anyways ?

really, I haven't paid attention to that. the ACLU is one of the few organizations i will donate money too.

Who other then the crazy fascist nuts anyways ?

The vast majority of the right wing (at least those in the limelight) and many Christians snarkily call them "The Anti-Chistian Liberties Union".

Because, nevermind that the ACLU regularly defends Christian's freedom of speech but, they dont give Christians special treatment damnit!"

To be clear, I wasn't really attacking your post AND the only ones I have called "gun nuts" were the plaintiffs in the OP case.

But, for the sake of argument, there is a difference between an organization devoted to a single issue -- absolute protection of gun rights -- and an organization that works on a wide range of constitutional issues (with the exception of gun rights).

So if the ACLU broke up and formed different branches concerned only with specific Amendments/articles they would be the same as the NRA?

Also the NRA has fought for the 1st Amendment in regards to publishing how to convert weapons to full AUTO(and a few other issues).

Also the NRA has one of the best gun Safety education courses I have seen.

The vast majority of the right wing (at least those in the limelight) and many Christians snarkily call them "The Anti-Chistian Liberties Union".

Because, nevermind that the ACLU regularly defends Christian's freedom of speech but, they dont give Christians special treatment damnit!"

that's what i get for not watching TV.

The vast majority of the right wing (at least those in the limelight) and many Christians snarkily call them "The Anti-Chistian Liberties Union".

Never mind gems like these that I've heard:

National Retards Association
National Redneck Association

Ad nauseum.

EDIT: Sorry Cat-Tribe. I didn't mean to - honest!

The vast majority of the right wing (at least those in the limelight) and many Christians snarkily call them "The Anti-Chistian Liberties Union".

Because, nevermind that the ACLU regularly defends Christian's freedom of speech but, they dont give Christians special treatment damnit!"

Never mind gems like these that I've heard:

National Retards Association
National Redneck Association

Ad nauseum.

How about we stop calling each other organizations to support our rights names?

How about we stop calling each other organizations to support our rights names?

But then we might stop and listen to each other's views instead of demonizing the other side. Then, in a fanatical bout of logic and reason, we might actually decide that we're all on the same side - attempting to protect peoples' rights.

So if the ACLU broke up and formed different branches concerned only with specific Amendments/articles they would be the same as the NRA?

Also the NRA has fought for the 1st Amendment in regards to publishing how to convert weapons to full AUTO(and a few other issues).

Also the NRA has one of the best gun Safety education courses I have seen.

Fair points, and I'll admit that part of my problem is I simply don't agree with many of the positions taken by the NRA.

The other factor is having people like Wayne LaPierre "rock the house" at CPAC by bragging about how gun sales are up.

I don't understand this "need" to carry guns everywhere.
I was reading a novel the other day and came across a line that I liked. It was actually about a trained assassin, yet he was narrating the explanation for why he didn't carry a gun all the time.

His reasoning was, a gun is a tool. If you saw a plumber carrying a toilet plunger with him EVERYWHERE HE WENT, you'd probably think he looked rather silly. So just because something is a useful tool, even if it is particularly and especially useful to you, doesn't mean you necessarily need to have that tool with you at all times.

I don't think that gun proponents believe there is a "need" to carry a gun with you everywhere.

Anymore than the ACLU believes that you "need" to always exercise your freedom of speech.

In fact, I know some girls that spend most of their time exercising that particular freedom, and I don't think even the ACLU would defend them in court.

You should just have the opportunity to always exercise those rights without fear of intervention.

I don't think that gun proponents believe there is a "need" to carry a gun with you everywhere.

I dunno about that. A lot of em act like their pistol is their special binky or something.

Fair points, and I'll admit that part of my problem is I simply don't agree with many of the positions taken by the NRA.

The other factor is having people like Wayne LaPierre "rock the house" at CPAC by bragging about how gun sales are up.

the president of the NRA called Wayne LaPierre language extreme rhetoric, and I would say he is not the best representation of the NRA.

My view has been we can either take narrow or broad views of the rights granted by the Constitution . Which ever path we take should be applied for all rights.

I dunno about that. A lot of em act like their pistol is their special binky or something.

Stephen Colbert, for example.

However, when I address the point of view of a particular side of an argument, I generally do so assuming that the most rational of those arguing that side are the only ones I need be concerned with. And if we're comparing the ACLU to gun proponents, the ACLU loves to stand on principle, so I took the same kind of argument and applied it elsewhere.

I dunno about that. A lot of em act like their pistol is their special binky or something.

I bet they have pet names for their favourite gun

the president of the NRA called Wayne LaPierre language extreme rhetoric, and I would say he is not the best representation of the NRA.

I was unaware of that. Do you happen to have a link? Because the NRA website seems to celebrate LaPierre's speech. link (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12177)

My view has been we can either take narrow or broad views of the rights granted by the Constitution . Which ever path we take should be applied for all rights.

I generally agree, but none of the rights in the BoR are absolute. It does not hurt, however, to have groups that argue as if they are.

I generally agree, but none of the rights in the BoR are absolute. It does not hurt, however, to have groups that argue as if they are.

Agreed. Hence why I said earlier that, while the NRA and ACLU and similar organizations may spend a lot of time charging windmills, they serve an essential purpose - making sure that we don't give up one inch of our rights without a damn good reason.

EDIT: made a mistake and accidently called Cat-Tribe Don Quixote. I didn't mean to, honestly.

I dunno about that. A lot of em act like their pistol is their special binky or something.

A weak attempt to marginalize someones legitimate interest in self defense.

I was unaware of that. Do you happen to have a link? Because the NRA website seems to celebrate LaPierre's speech. link (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12177)

not about that video but about him in general. though dated to 2000, not a link but a news paper article.
Lacey, Mark (March 20,2000) "NRA. Stands by Criticism of President." New York Times.

I generally agree, but none of the rights in the BoR are absolute. It does not hurt, however, to have groups that argue as if they are.

that I can agree with. I would like to see more from law makers in the fields of certain rights but i think they don't have the fortitude to act until after the courts do.

A weak attempt to marginalize someones legitimate interest in self defense.

Id be curious too see how many times they actually use it for self defense.


Im thinkin hardly.

Im hardly.

Nice to meet you. I'm John.

Never mind gems like these that I've heard:

National Retards Association
National Redneck Association

Ad nauseum.

EDIT: Sorry Cat-Tribe. I didn't mean to - honest!

I dont know why anyone would make up a name for the NRA. Theyre nuts. The name National Rifle Association does them all the justice they deserve.

I dont know why anyone would make up a name for the NRA. Theyre nuts. The name National Rifle Association does them all the justice they deserve.

And yet, they do.

EDIT: Classifying all NRA members as nuts would classify me as a nut. I don't particularly like being called an nut, unless it's a cashew. I like cashews. *spaces out* *snaps back* Yes, as I was saying, there are clubs and associations for everything. There's a United States Parachuting Association, a, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assocation, U.S. Bungee Association, Fraternal Order of Police... lots of associations for lots of various things. These associations attempt to protect their own interests and the interests of their members, much as the NRA does.

A federal appeals court has dismissed a Georgia gun group's lawsuit seeking to allow firearms in parts of the world's busiest airport. I am not serious that this is a serious blow to Second Amendment rights.

The group GeorgiaCarry.org (http://www.georgiacarry.org/) sued after the city of Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport banned guns from even unsecured areas in the terminals.

That was a response to a Georgia law passed last summer that allows people with permits to take their guns into restaurants and state parks and on public transportation.

A federal judge had already thrown out GeorgiaCarry's lawsuit, and a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his decision Thursday.

Gun rights advocates say now they may try to get the law changed to specifically allow guns in the airport.

linky (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/03-12-2009/20090312125006_06.html)

I'm sorry but IMHO the gun nuts are being ridiculous. Airports are a reasonable place to restrict the carrying of guns.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals brief unpublished decision affirming the district court may be found here (http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815571.pdf).

Various document including the Complaint by Georgia Carry (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/complaint.pdf) and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's decision (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/Doc%2050%20Order%20granting%20MJOP.pdf) dismissing the case may be found here (http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/).

Anyone wish to defend the right to carry firearms at airports??

There are places where you need dakka. This is not one of them.

Leave your gun at home. Bags get stolen and lost all the time. With the exception of the Air marshal no one needs a gun least of all at an airport.

Sometimes, people can't leave their firearms at home. Some people pay big money for guided hunts, and they don't always live in the area the hunt will be in (so they need to fly in). Of course, those firearms should go in checked luggage, unloaded.

Those ends being what? The ACLU defends the Constitution for the sake of defending the Constitution. Their most famous cases are those that piss off the religious right, but they have almost as often been on the same side.

Yeah, they're kind of, you know, really good at supporting freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and protection of human rights.

I don't think that gun proponents believe there is a "need" to carry a gun with you everywhere.
You'd be wrong as I have seen people repeatedly take that very position, twice today just today.

You'd be wrong as I have seen people repeatedly take that very position, twice today just today.

Perhaps their wording was off. Paranoia not withstanding, that is not the position I myself would take in such a defense.

I have also explained to someone who brought up that very same critique my response to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14607910&postcount=185

Perhaps their wording was off. Paranoia not withstanding, that is not the position I myself would take in such a defense.

I have also explained to someone who brought up that very same critique my response to it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14607910&postcount=185

Uh no. You stated that no gun proponents seriously think people should always carry a gun with the everywhere. If we assumed this very court case didn't prove you wrong, simple observation does as I have observed two gun proponents make that very statement just today.

Id be curious too see how many times they actually use it for self defense.

The problem is criminals dont give you a two week notice when they intend to victimize you. So in order to be able to defend yourself you necessarily need to carry a gun far more then you actually use it, if ever.

I think as long as you put them in the check luggage it should be ok,

I can see why they don't want them on the plane as carry on. But even then... it's not like the whole 9-11 thing used guns. Maybe if guns were allowed on planes 9/11 wouldn't have been so bad.

Who can say?

I'm trying to find the logic in that.

The problem is criminals dont give you a two week notice when they intend to victimize you. So in order to be able to defend yourself you necessarily need to carry a gun far more then you actually use it, if ever.

Or you could not carry a gun, and youd probably be attacked the same amount of times.


Most of the time, its zero.

Or you could not carry a gun, and youd probably be attacked the same amount of times.


Most of the time, its zero.

If i am not mistaken one out of four women get sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 0 is a bit low of a number.

If i am not mistaken one out of four women get sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 0 is a bit low of a number.

(Err... if your numbers are correct, 'zero' is the right number, 75% of the time....)

If i am not mistaken one out of four women get sexually assaulted in their lifetime. 0 is a bit low of a number.

Ok, now lets see statistics that having a gun would change that.


If you cant, I stand by what I say. Having a gun changes nothing.

I won't mention any names but it sounds like there might be one or mosre posters that are actually claiming that it is bad to bring firearms into an airport in your luggage. That is ridiculous and I wonder if it is trolling or if it is serious.

I won't mention any names but it sounds like there might be one or mosre posters that are actually claiming that it is bad to bring firearms into an airport in your luggage. That is ridiculous and I wonder if it is trolling or if it is serious.

You can name me, if you like. I personally think it's a bad idea to bring guns into an airport, even in luggage.

Luggage isn't a miracle. It's governed by physical laws, and the actions of people - and that means, if you put a gun in your luggage, even if it's unloaded and the ammunition is shipped separately - you, or someone else, could still use that gun as a tool of intimidation, or as an actual weapon.

You could do so, by simply pulling the gun out of your luggage before it is checked. Someone else could do so AFTER it is checked, since there are a whole load of people with possible access to it AFTER it leaves your line of sight.

Me, personally? I wouldn't take a gun to an airport any more than I would take one to a pre-K or a swimming pool.

I can't think of many good reasons why anyone would.

I won't mention any names but it sounds like there might be one or mosre posters that are actually claiming that it is bad to bring firearms into an airport in your luggage.
I am. We have security guards for that.
That is ridiculous and I wonder if it is trolling or if it is serious.
No, needing to bring your gun everywhere is pathetic. I wonder if all you guys are compensating.

Ok, now lets see statistics that having a gun would change that.


If you cant, I stand by what I say. Having a gun changes nothing.

If Woman does not have gun and man does not have gun chance of woman fighting off man ~5%(low numbers because predatory men normally choose to victimize those that appear weak).
If woman does not have gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~ 0%.


now.
If woman has gun and man does not have gun chance of fighting off attacker ~100%
If Woman has gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~50%

Assuming 50% chance of armed or unarmed assailant (would actually swing much more heavily to unarmed assailant). Unarmed woman has ~2.5% chance of fighting off an assailant, while and armed woman has a 75% chance of fighting off an assailant.
Seems to be an improvement of 72.5%. given a population of 150 million women in the US. Arming them would prevent 27 million women from being sexually assaulted.

Why do you hate Women?

If Woman does not have gun and man does not have gun chance of woman fighting off man ~5%(low numbers because predatory men normally choose to victimize those that appear weak).
If woman does not have gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~ 0%.


now.
If woman has gun and man does not have gun chance of fighting off attacker ~100%
If Woman has gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~50%

Assuming 50% chance of armed or unarmed assailant (would actually swing much more heavily to unarmed assailant). Unarmed woman has ~2.5% chance of fighting off an assailant, while and armed woman has a 75% chance of fighting off an assailant.
Seems to be an improvement of 72.5%. given a population of 150 million women in the US. Arming them would prevent 27 million women from being sexually assaulted.

Why do you hate Women?

72% of all stastics are made up. Thus I want a source for this.

<snippity BS>

Ok, I support widespread conceal and carry, but that argument was pure bullshit. Try again.

now.
If woman has gun and man does not have gun chance of fighting off attacker ~100%
If Woman has gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~50%


Because rapists always approach in clearly lit environments, from a clearly visible angle, and broadcast their intent long before they attack.

No, wait.... they don't do they. Ah, shame... that's got to make those numbers pretty much useless.

I bet they have pet names for their favourite gun

My rifle's pet name is "my rifle".

Or you could not carry a gun, and youd probably be attacked the same amount of times.


Most of the time, its zero.

Probably and most are not words and risks everyone is willing to take.

Because rapists always approach in clearly lit environments, from a clearly visible angle, and broadcast their intent long before they attack.

No, wait.... they don't do they. Ah, shame... that's got to make those numbers pretty much useless.

Not to mention he pretty much made them up and theyre a bit...sexist.

72% of all stastics are made up. Thus I want a source for this.

answer my question why do you hate women first.

You can name me, if you like. I personally think it's a bad idea to bring guns into an airport, even in luggage.

Luggage isn't a miracle. It's governed by physical laws, and the actions of people - and that means, if you put a gun in your luggage, even if it's unloaded and the ammunition is shipped separately - you, or someone else, could still use that gun as a tool of intimidation, or as an actual weapon.

You could do so, by simply pulling the gun out of your luggage before it is checked. Someone else could do so AFTER it is checked, since there are a whole load of people with possible access to it AFTER it leaves your line of sight.

Me, personally? I wouldn't take a gun to an airport any more than I would take one to a pre-K or a swimming pool.

I can't think of many good reasons why anyone would.

I am. We have security guards for that.

No, needing to bring your gun everywhere is pathetic. I wonder if all you guys are compensating.

Are you guys serious??? Look, lets say that I want to fly down to my second home in another state. I decide to bring along a couple of my rifles and pistols. Do you know how many people travel to go to vacations? Of course many of those folks are shooters. Maybe you want to go some place warmer and do a little bit of shooting where it isnt so gosh darn cold and windy. What right do any of us have to interfere with that?

If people are stealing from luggage that is the fault of the airline and we need greater security. It is not the fault of the passenger if the airline loses his firearm. That is just blaming the victim.

What legitimate purpose is served by taking a firearm out of one's luggage and brandishing it? I cannot think of any.

Ok, I support widespread conceal and carry, but that argument was pure bullshit. Try again.

you mean i cant just fudge for fun.

answer my question why do you hate women first.

So, you have no source and just pulled those numbers out of your ass.

This is pretty in character.

If Woman does not have gun and man does not have gun chance of woman fighting off man ~5%(low numbers because predatory men normally choose to victimize those that appear weak).
If woman does not have gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~ 0%.


now.
If woman has gun and man does not have gun chance of fighting off attacker ~100%
If Woman has gun and man has gun chance of fighting off attacker ~50%

Assuming 50% chance of armed or unarmed assailant (would actually swing much more heavily to unarmed assailant). Unarmed woman has ~2.5% chance of fighting off an assailant, while and armed woman has a 75% chance of fighting off an assailant.
Seems to be an improvement of 72.5%. given a population of 150 million women in the US. Arming them would prevent 27 million women from being sexually assaulted.

Why do you hate Women?

Because your 'point' is complete bullshit. While I don't have statistics off the top of my head, something like 90-95% of sexual assaults are commited by relatives, friends or family members. The belief that most sexual assaults are committed by mysterious strangers in dark alleyways is simply wrong.

Of course, it follows that most assaults are committed when one or both parties are somewhat drunk. It might be being taken advantage of by an acquaintance, drugged by a date, or simply forced into sex by a husband. A gun doesn't help with any of these.

And then, of course, it becomes clear where the problem in your point is - even if guns would make assaults of the type you assume much harder, this would hardly make a dent in the overall statistics, as most sexual assaults simply are not of the type you assume.

Are you guys serious??? Look, lets say that I want to fly down to my second home in another state. I decide to bring along a couple of my rifles and pistols. Do you know how many people travel to go to vacations? Of course many of those folks are shooters. Maybe you want to go some place warmer and do a little bit of shooting where it isnt so gosh darn cold and windy. What right do any of us have to interfere with that?

If people are stealing from luggage that is the fault of the airline and we need greater security. It is not the fault of the passenger if the airline loses his firearm. That is just blaming the victim.

What legitimate purpose is served by taking a firearm out of one's luggage and brandishing it? I cannot think of any.

None. But that doesn't stop someone with nefarious intent taking a firearm in his luggage - just like your legitimate shooter - and withdrawing it to use one others there. If you want to send your guns to where you're going, why don't you use this excellent system we've devised for the purpose. We call it the Postal Service.

Are you guys serious??? Look, lets say that I want to fly down to my second home in another state. I decide to bring along a couple of my rifles and pistols. Do you know how many people travel to go to vacations? Of course many of those folks are shooters. Maybe you want to go some place warmer and do a little bit of shooting where it isnt so gosh darn cold and windy. What right do any of us have to interfere with that?

If people are stealing from luggage that is the fault of the airline and we need greater security. It is not the fault of the passenger if the airline loses his firearm. That is just blaming the victim.

What legitimate purpose is served by taking a firearm out of one's luggage and brandishing it? I cannot think of any.

If you can afford to maintain a second HOME, I don't see why you can't afford to maintain a second gun.

If you can afford to jaunt around the country as the whim takes you, just because you feel like being in warmer climes when you shoot things... I don't see why you can't a fford to maintain spares in other places, or register with some kind of club so you can 'borrow' one.

Because your 'point' is complete bullshit. While I don't have statistics off the top of my head, something like 90-95% of sexual assaults are commited by relatives, friends or family members. The belief that most sexual assaults are committed by mysterious strangers in dark alleyways is simply wrong.

and... these friends are just as susceptible to bullets as strangers.

Of course, it follows that most assaults are committed when one or both parties are somewhat drunk. It might be being taken advantage of by an acquaintance, drugged by a date, or simply forced into sex by a husband. A gun doesn't help with any of these.

my gun works fine when i am drunk.

And then, of course, it becomes clear where the problem in your point is - even if guns would make assaults of the type you assume much harder, this would hardly make a dent in the overall statistics, as most sexual assaults simply are not of the type you assume.

guns equalize close range situations for women too.

So, you have no source and just pulled those numbers out of your ass.

This is pretty in character.

and you avoiding the question of why you hate women. Which I asked you first.

... cashew....

Gesundheit! :D

None. But that doesn't stop someone with nefarious intent taking a firearm in his luggage - just like your legitimate shooter - and withdrawing it to use one others there. If you want to send your guns to where you're going, why don't you use this excellent system we've devised for the purpose. We call it the Postal Service.

This way of thinking is dangerous. People having guns is ok and should not be even an aspect of the discussion of gun policy. How one uses them is the defining value of the conversation. Otherwise you sound like a Kim Jong Il or something. If someone pulls out a gun in an airport, this is clearly a crime. Someone bringing a firearm with him for legitimate purposes is fine. There are gun collectors who transport some pretty valuable guns and would not want them entrusted to the postal service.

and... these friends are just as susceptible to bullets as strangers.

You see, you're still making the same basic error. You're still assuming that every sexual assault scenario is man approaches woman, and forces her physically into having sex. This is simply not the case. And for basically any scenario apart from this, a gun is generally no use. How does the girl at a party who drank too much and is now basically unconscious use a gun to defend herself against a guy groping her while she sleeps?

amy gun works fine when i am drunk.

And you're always fully aware of what might be going on, fully in control of yourself, able to find and operate your gun if you don't happen to be carrying it right at the moment, and even conscious?

aguns equalize close range situations for women too.

Most sexual assaults aren't close range physical fights or the like. A gun doesn't help when you're too drunk to think straight, doped up, when you don't really want to but feel it's your duty, etc.

If you can afford to maintain a second HOME, I don't see why you can't afford to maintain a second gun.

If you can afford to jaunt around the country as the whim takes you, just because you feel like being in warmer climes when you shoot things... I don't see why you can't a fford to maintain spares in other places, or register with some kind of club so you can 'borrow' one.

I do not like to leave my guns in my second home. If it is burglarized and the guns are stolen they could be used for any manner of horrible purpose and it might be months before I found out about the theft. A responsible gun owner does not leave firearms all over the place.

This has nothing to do with what one is capable of affording to do.

This way of thinking is dangerous. People having guns is ok and should not be even an aspect of the discussion of gun policy. How one uses them is the defining value of the conversation. Otherwise you sound like a Kim Jong Il or something. If someone pulls out a gun in an airport, this is clearly a crime. Someone bringing a firearm with him for legitimate purposes is fine. There are gun collectors who transport some pretty valuable guns and would not want them entrusted to the postal service.

But will entrust them to minimum wage baggage handlers, in cases that (by law) have to be easy to unlock. This is not a sensible way of weighing up the risks, if you ask me.

And I take issue with your contention that people having guns is inherently okay. I feel that when we are dealing with implements designed for a rather specific purpose - that of killing other human beings - asking questions about why people should have them in the first place is rather reasonable. And furthermore, restricting all ownership in certain locations is reasonble, given the difficulty in discerning the difference between someone armed for legitimate purposes and someone armed for nefarious purposes, before any actions are taken. Call it a pre-emptive strike.

But will entrust them to minimum wage baggage handlers, in cases that (by law) have to be easy to unlock. This is not a sensible way of weighing up the risks, if you ask me.

And I take issue with your contention that people having guns is inherently okay. I feel that when we are dealing with implements designed for a rather specific purpose - that of killing other human beings - asking questions about why people should have them in the first place is rather reasonable. And furthermore, restricting all ownership in certain locations is reasonble, given the difficulty in discerning the difference between someone armed for legitimate purposes and someone armed for nefarious purposes, before any actions are taken. Call it a pre-emptive strike.

Nope. Certain people should not be allowed to have guns. That is the only relevant question.

You see, you're still making the same basic error. You're still assuming that every sexual assault scenario is man approaches woman, and forces her physically into having sex. This is simply not the case. And for basically any scenario apart from this, a gun is generally no use. How does the girl at a party who drank too much and is now basically unconscious use a gun to defend herself against a guy groping her while she sleeps?

provided % of unconscious drugged/drunk rapes (accept friend rapes numbers)


And you're always fully aware of what might be going on, fully in control of yourself, able to find and operate your gun if you don't happen to be carrying it right at the moment, and even conscious?

I am drunk now let me go out side and shoot.



Most sexual assaults aren't close range

you can be raped at range :O

I do not like to leave my guns in my second home. If it is burglarized and the guns are stolen they could be used for any manner of horrible purpose and it might be months before I found out about the theft. A responsible gun owner does not leave firearms all over the place.


Which is bullshit.

If you go on holiday to your second home, you leave guns in your first home.

Sorry, can't have it both ways - you're leaving guns somewhere, so the excuse is lame.

you can be raped at range :O

That's what happened to me...

Which is bullshit.

If you go on holiday to your second home, you leave guns in your first home.

Sorry, can't have it both ways - you're leaving guns somewhere, so the excuse is lame.

Depends on how many guns you have. I used to have seven, but now I'm down to two. I could very easily take two guns with me when I go on vacation.

This way of thinking is dangerous. People having guns is ok and should not be even an aspect of the discussion of gun policy.


Rubbish.

People having guns is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. There's nothing implicit in the human condition, or in our membership of society, that says people MUST have guns.


How one uses them is the defining value of the conversation.


Not at all - the infamous Trenchcoat Mafia had access to weapons that were not theirs to use - the person that owned them was 'using them' in a perfectly responsible manner (they were put away), but someone else mishandled them.


Otherwise you sound like a Kim Jong Il or something.


Please... there aren't two alternatives. The UK has negative gun law, and yet is fairly remote from the despotism you're suggesting it would be.


If someone pulls out a gun in an airport, this is clearly a crime.


Which would make you, the provider of the weapon, an accessory.


There are gun collectors who transport some pretty valuable guns and would not want them entrusted to the postal service.

Legitimate 'collectors' should take special precautions, and be specially permitted. Personally, I think some kind of 'unbreakable' lockbox with a time-release lock that can't be triggered until AFTER the flight, would be a reasonable precaution.

Depends on how many guns you have. I used to have seven, but now I'm down to two. I could very easily take two guns with me when I go on vacation.

And which of those guns do you keep in your primary home, and which one(s) do you keep in your second home?

DO you, in fact, travel with two guns, every time you fly? Did you previously carry seven?

And which of those guns do you keep in your primary home, and which one(s) do you keep in your second home?

DO you, in fact, travel with two guns, every time you fly? Did you previously carry seven?

Well, I haven't flown recently, but I used to carry two - these two actually. The other five I left with a friend.

Which is bullshit.

If you go on holiday to your second home, you leave guns in your first home.

Sorry, can't have it both ways - you're leaving guns somewhere, so the excuse is lame.

Yeah but I do not go there for very long. I might not be at my second home for months.

Depends on how many guns you have. I used to have seven, but now I'm down to two. I could very easily take two guns with me when I go on vacation.

That is fine with me that you take two guns with you at all times. A colleage-friend of mine is the most well armed man around and I do not see a problem with that but then I am not a mugger/murderer/burglar/etc.

Yeah but I do not go there for very long. I might not be at my second home for months.

Most burglaries take considerably shorter amounts of time than 'months' to execute. Burglars, in fact, often try to get the whole thing done promptly - you could almost say, as quickly as possible.

So - even if you are only at your 'summer home' for a weekend, that's about 47 hours and 40 minutes longer than it would take to gain the benefits of your accumulated arsenal.

Most burglaries take considerably shorter amounts of time than 'months' to execute. Burglars, in fact, often try to get the whole thing done promptly - you could almost say, as quickly as possible.

So - even if you are only at your 'summer home' for a weekend, that's about 47 hours and 40 minutes longer than it would take to gain the benefits of your accumulated arsenal.

Yes you are 100% correct there. But I could at least report the burglary within 48 hours vs. 6 weeks.

That is fine with me that you take two guns with you at all times. A colleage-friend of mine is the most well armed man around and I do not see a problem with that but then I am not a mugger/murderer/burglar/etc.

Well I have a rifle for animals, and a pistol for protection from people or smaller animals. They serve two different purposes.

Yes you are 100% correct there. But I could at least report the burglary within 48 hours vs. 6 weeks.

Within 72, maybe, unless you live in the airport AND keep your summer home there...

Either way - the point is - you'd be leaving lethal weapons unattended in either situation, so the 'excuse' fails.

There are places where you need dakka. This is not one of them.
Moar dakka!
My rifle's pet name is "my rifle".

This is "my rifle"?

Well I have a rifle for animals, and a pistol for protection from people or smaller animals. They serve two different purposes.

Yes. One's for killing, while the other is just for killing.

I dunno... it must all be in the timing.

Well I have a rifle for animals, and a pistol for protection from people or smaller animals. They serve two different purposes.

The main reason that I have a pistol in my car is in case I hit an animal with my car so I can euthanize it.

Within 72, maybe, unless you live in the airport AND keep your summer home there...

Either way - the point is - you'd be leaving lethal weapons unattended in either situation, so the 'excuse' fails.

No it does not. It is much better to promptly report the theft of a firearm that do so much later. I am not even in law enforcement and I know that.

Yes. One's for killing, while the other is just for killing.

I dunno... it must all be in the timing.

I take it you're against all forms of hunting then?

No it does not. It is much better to promptly report the theft of a firearm that do so much later. I am not even in law enforcement and I know that.

Gone is gone. Your excuse fails.

Notification time only relates to helping track the weapon (maybe), and covering your own ass if it's used in a crime. The fundamental fact that you would be leaving guns behind, in one venue or the other, is unchanged by the reportage.