Time Magazine

[Ridiculous]

While I am all for Ron Paul, I really don't think he should be saying things like "911 may have been avoided if passengers on the planes had handguns" (paraphrased). While true, it is a statement that makes him seem kind of nutty to a lot of people. He should just give strong pro 2nd amendment statements which will have the same intended effect as the statement he made but appeal to a lot more people without making him sound like the nut that a lot of people are painting him to be.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653405,00.html

[0zzy]

I already emailed them last night. They really love to twist his words to make him look nutty. While Paul would support everyone to have to have handguns on planes, I think he was specifically talking about the pilots. Hence "the airlines couldn't protect their passengers or equipment".

[Ridiculous]

Can someone please get the actual quote from the speech on Youtube and post it. I'd do it but I don't want to be playing political stuff out loud at work.

[Kuldebar]

While I am all for Ron Paul, I really don't think he should be saying things like "911 may have been avoided if passengers on the planes had handguns" (paraphrased). While true, it is a statement that makes him seem kind of nutty to a lot of people. He should just give strong pro 2nd amendment statements which will have the same intended effect as the statement he made but appeal to a lot more people without making him sound like the nut that a lot of people are painting him to be.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653405,00.html

He didn't say that. Get your facts straight by listening to the speech again. Otherwise, you will just fall for every media slant out there. And, he has talked about more respect for the 2nd Amendment and 9/11 more than once in other interviews and speeches, so it's not a big mystery.

[Ridiculous]

Fine. But what exactly did he say.

[0zzy]

Fine. But what exactly did he say.


"I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we would had a lot more respect for the 2nd amendment. Freedom means self-responsibility and self-reliance. It also means that you get to keep the fruits of your labor. But on 9/11, the responsibility for protecting passengers had been diverted to centralized bureaucratic government. The government told us that we would be safe, that we weren't aloud to resist hijackers, and that there was a prevention for having guns on the airlines. The airlines weren't even permitted to protect their passengers and their equipment. So respect for the 2nd amendment would certainly go along way.

Is what he said.

[themanhere]

I think TIME hates freedom.

The damn pilots already hold your life in their hands! If they were going to go postal you really think they would reach for a gun? CRAZY libs! I don't see what is so nutty about allowing them to pack heat in case of a emergency. Of course they should be trained just like a security guard or cop.

Anyone who doesn't agree with Ron Paul on this i consider nutty.

Passengers too!

[angelatc]

I think TIME hates freedom.

The damn pilots already hold your life in their hands! If they were going to go postal you really think they would reach for a gun? CRAZY libs! I don't see what is so nutty about allowing them to pack heat in case of a emergency. Of course they should be trained just like a security guard or cop.



Most of them were Air Force and Navy pilots. They've had lots of training.

[Syren123]

Now I remember why I no longer subscribe to TIME. They can't get two even simple facts correct.

a) Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian, and
b) he never said passengers should be able to pack heat.

If they can't get two easily verifiable facts correct, why in the world should anyone believe ANYTHING they choose to print. People Magazine has more credibility.

[Badger Paul]

You know it's funny, Klein has complained for years about how phony, inauthentic politicians and pre-packaged, focus-group constructed policies have ruined politics. So whom does he say is going to win the GOP nomination and provide Hilary Clinton with formidable opposition in the fall? The most phoniest candidate running.

Hilary will clean his clock. She's no Al Gore or John Kerry. If the GOP wants to go down the road of another drugstore cowboy (all hat and not cattle) by all means, then after they're landlsided out of office, then they'll learn their lesson.

[loupeznik]

I think passengers should be armed.

[Kregener]

You "think" Time hates freedom?

Tell me how it makes sense for a pilot to NOT be "trusted" with possession of a handgun, when he has total control of an aluminum tube, filled with 150 passengers, traveling at 450 mph, filled with jet fuel.

:rolleyes:

[Mesogen]

I think passengers should be armed.

Seriously?

[Kregener]

The only problem with allowing passengers to carry, is that it would be a logistical nightmare making sure they all had sub-sonic, frangible ammo in their weapons.

Let me assure you, if you and I were on the same plane, and I was carrying, you would have nothing to fear from me.

And every reason to expect that I would do everything in my power to save your life in a given situation.

[ARealConservative]

The only problem with allowing passengers to carry, is that it would be a logistical nightmare making sure they all had sub-sonic, frangible ammo in their weapons.

Let me assure you, if you and I were on the same plane, and I was carrying, you would have nothing to fear from me.

And every reason to expect that I would do everything in my power to save your life in a given situation.

I would choose the airline that only allowed pilots to carry.

The other airline would be too expensive after finding an insurance provider that protects their liability for allowing armed passengers on a plane.

The free market handles this stuff once again.

[Man from La Mancha]

I think passengers should be armed.

Right on I have no proplem with,in fact 43 states allow concelled carry so I don't find many would object, unless their from states like Commifornia.


http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/4646/sept11c540zm5.jpg

[Omnis]

I would choose the airline that only allowed pilots to carry.

The other airline would be too expensive after finding an insurance provider that protects their liability for allowing armed passengers on a plane.

The free market handles this stuff once again.

Amen. Every pilot should have a sidearm and there should be at least one PDW in the cockpit.

[jcbraithwaite7]

Ok... so I've never been a huge fan of guns but am coming around to see the reason to have one. However, I DO NOT want passengers to be able to carry guns- just pilots.

This is the image I have in my head:
Some crazy nut job with too many Southwest drink coupons, low blood sugar from chewing on one tiny bag of peanuts after a 5 hour flight and having to watch Gigli or some other crappy movie on the plane. He is headed home where his wife is going to serve him with divorce papers because she is screwing his business partner/best friend. His teenage daughter just told him she is pregnant and dropping out of school. He just got the news he is getting laid off and some bitchy flight attendant has hit his elbow with the drink cart for the 8th time. He has a panic attack and nothing to lose. He pulls out the gun and accidently shoots a window, loosing cabin pressure and the oxygen masks fall. Now all the adrenaline gets pumping in the heroes who want to save the day and are also packing heat. Bullets flying, babies screaming and crap flying around the plane. No thanks... just let the pilot/crew carry guns.

Same thing with cell phones. I do not want to use cell phones on the plane because I don't want to hear the loud jerk tell the same story and dirty joke to everyone in his contact list while flying cross country. I know how I use my phone when I am alone and bored on long car drives. That is one can of worms that the airlines shouldn't open either.

[inibo]

He didn't say that. Get your facts straight by listening to the speech again. Otherwise, you will just fall for every media slant out there. And, he has talked about more respect for the 2nd Amendment and 9/11 more than once in other interviews and speeches, so it's not a big mystery.

He's been saying it all along. Here is a quote from January 25, 2002:


Almost all Americans – especially those still flying commercial airlines – now know that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens best protect our homes, because it is impossible for the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner's ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent.

Our government's ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes had indoctrinated us all – pilots, passengers and airline owners – to believe we should never resist hijackers. This set up the perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights, just as they did on September 11th.

The people of this country now realize, more than ever, their own responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before. This is all good.

But sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and security has been socialized – in spite of the fact that security procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. The problem did not come from failure to follow FAA rules; the problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans are wisely assuming they'd better be ready to protect themselves when necessary!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul11.html



Consistency.

[loupeznik]

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. You are not going to get sucked out of a bullet hole. It's not the shuttle for Christ's sake. I go armed when ever I not too lazy to put it on. I'm sure there are a lot of people on the street you have passed are armed and you just didn't know it. Join the club. It has less buttons than a car.

[loupeznik]

Ok... so I've never been a huge fan of guns but am coming around to see the reason to have one. However, I DO NOT want passengers to be able to carry guns- just pilots.

This is the image I have in my head:
Some crazy nut job with too many Southwest drink coupons, low blood sugar from chewing on one tiny bag of peanuts after a 5 hour flight and having to watch Gigli or some other crappy movie on the plane. He is headed home where his wife is going to serve him with divorce papers because she is screwing his business partner/best friend. His teenage daughter just told him she is pregnant and dropping out of school. He just got the news he is getting laid off and some bitchy flight attendant has hit his elbow with the drink cart for the 8th time. He has a panic attack and nothing to lose. He pulls out the gun and accidently shoots a window, loosing cabin pressure and the oxygen masks fall. Now all the adrenaline gets pumping in the heroes who want to save the day and are also packing heat. Bullets flying, babies screaming and crap flying around the plane. No thanks... just let the pilot/crew carry guns.

Same thing with cell phones. I do not want to use cell phones on the plane because I don't want to hear the loud jerk tell the same story and dirty joke to everyone in his contact list while flying cross country. I know how I use my phone when I am alone and bored on long car drives. That is one can of worms that the airlines shouldn't open either.

I have never quite decided what the best argument for guns would be:

a: You trust the other guy not to go on a rampage.
b: You don't trust anyone and you want to be armed.

Hey, they both work!

The anti gun argument says that you don't trust anyone except authority figures. Like say airport (minimum wage?) screeners or air-martials and you also don't trust yourself to defend yourself.

[loupeznik]

http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/2606

Here is a link about NOT getting sucked out of a plane.

[d'anconia]

So what is it specifically about sweatshops that gets everyone so riled up over the subject? I mean as long as the workers aren't beaten up or anything and the workers are free to quit whenever they want then what's the big deal? Isn't a low wage better than no wage?

PS Skreened want to give us some more info on exactly who was "threatening" you so that we can confront them? And next time you should be a bit more careful when using the term "threaten" because legal threats are just that... legal and not always unethical.