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

[Razmear]

He needs to drop that from his speeches.

Here is what Time Magazine heard:

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

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

[Sematary]

That will play AWESOME with EVERYONE who supports that position - more people than you might think - and it will also play well with most Americans who believe that we need to be able to defend ourselves from the bad guys. This is GREAT news for his campaign.

[pazzo83]

I'd like to see someone hijack a plane when other people on the plane are armed.

[foofighter20x]

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

The man is a genius. :)

[DeadheadForPaul]

I think for the average person, that statement sounds insane. I personally think it does. He needs to clarify that he wants security members on the plane with guns

When people hear a statement like that, t hey think "oh god, every terrorist and gang member will have a gun on flights...it's going to turn into a shootout"

[Thomas_Paine]

He needs to drop that from his speeches.

Here is what Time Magazine heard:

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

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

Ron Paul's position is that the airlines have the RIGHT to defend their property and their passengers, therefore it is up to them whether or not to allow guns aboard a flight. Pilots should pack heat PERIOD.

[jonahtrainer]

That will play AWESOME with EVERYONE who supports that position - more people than you might think - and it will also play well with most Americans who believe that we need to be able to defend ourselves from the bad guys. This is GREAT news for his campaign.

No kidding. There are a lot of people pissed off from the FEMA weapon confiscations (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4) leaving law abiding citizens defenseless against armed gangs.

The only thing that backfires with Ron Paul is people attacking or ignoring his ideas.

[kalami]

You guys are spinning something that obviously isn't a good thing. Regardless, we know that it's not what if even meant, so the people that believe this will do so falsely.

[Dustancostine]

I think for the average person, that statement sounds insane. I personally think it does. He needs to clarify that he wants security members on the plane with guns

When people hear a statement like that, t hey think "oh god, every terrorist and gang member will have a gun on flights...it's going to turn into a shootout"

Better a shoot out than crashing it into a tower.

[lintsniffer]

I'd love the government to try and restrict what is allowed on MY plane.

If I get a plane :(

[jonahtrainer]

I'd like to see someone hijack a plane when other people on the plane are armed.

Think of all the people at Virgina Tech who would probably still be alive if the campus administration hadn't banned weapons a year earlier.

[Sematary]

This is WHY we support him! What's not to love? He spoke the truth - yet again - and it's getting media coverage and the gunowners (most Americans) will LOVE it!

[Wyurm]

Ron Paul's position is that the airlines have the RIGHT to defend their property and their passengers, therefore it is up to them whether or not to allow guns aboard a flight. Pilots should pack heat PERIOD.

exactly, I do agree with the OP in that RP sometimes neglects to completely explain his points in a way that protects them from being misunderstood, but I don't think this will do any harm.

[Sematary]

Think of all the people at Virgina Tech who would probably still be alive if the campus administration hadn't banned weapons a year earlier.

yep

[Original_Intent]

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

[Dustancostine]

You guys are spinning something that obviously isn't a good thing. Regardless, we know that it's not what if even meant, so the people that believe this will do so falsely.

It may be because I am in Texas. But when I talk to most conservatives and bring up this very issue, they get very excited. Tell a Red State Republican, that RP wants to defend Terrorism by sealing the border and letting citizens carry their guns, and most say something to the effect of "sounds good to me".

--Dustan

[Sematary]

exactly, I do agree with the OP in that RP sometimes neglects to completely explain his points in a way that protects them from being misunderstood, but I don't think this will do any harm.

Hell - I think it will do alot of GOOD

[CMoore]

The man is a genius.


He is pretty smart.

[BLS]

The thing is...Ron Pauls' ideals are very radical to most mainstream people.
BUT...once they 'get it'...it becomes very clear.

I disagree, respectfully, Raz.
Why hide from your true feelings?! If RP believes that if people were allowed to carry guns, this kind of crap would never happen, and sheeple actually start thinking, we might just have a country worth taking back.

I know what you're saying man. I know your point of view.
And yes, it's a tough hill to climb for the average citizen.
But that's where you and I come in. We have to explain this stuff on his behalf.

Plus, the old adage always applies.
"There's no such thing as bad publicity"

Just my .02

[Man from La Mancha]

I think for the average person, that statement sounds insane. I personally think it does. He needs to clarify that he wants security members on the plane with guns

When people hear a statement like that, t hey think "oh god, every terrorist and gang member will have a gun on flights...it's going to turn into a shootout"


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

.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[TruePatriot44]

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

[Sematary]

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

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

[trispear]

From TFA:

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

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

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

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

[DeadheadForPaul]

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

.

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

[noxagol]

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

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

[Original_Intent]

From TFA:


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

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

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

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

[TruePatriot44]

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

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

[Sematary]

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

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

[TheEvilDetector]

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

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

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

Notice could read something like:

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

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

[atilla]

From TFA:


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

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

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

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

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[SWATH]

Time magazine is full of CFR inspired bullshit.

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

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

translation:

auto-determinism = freedom

[noxagol]

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

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

Notice could read something like:

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

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

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

[Shellshock1918]

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

[Nash]

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

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

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

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

[wecandoit]

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

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

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

[quickmike]

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

[Slugg]

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

The man is a genius. :)

Yeah he is!

[trispear]

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

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

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

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

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

[ZackM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richandler]

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

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

[trispear]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ron Paul Fan]

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


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

[quickmike]

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

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

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

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

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

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

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

Explain your reasoning.

[Razmear]

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

eb

[Nefertiti]

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

[ButchHowdy]

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

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

[ButchHowdy]

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

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

[lucius]

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

S9498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE September 19, 2001

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

[quickmike]

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

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

[max]

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

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

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

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

[Dave Wood]

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

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

We see if I get a reply???:D

[Bradley in DC]

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

[loupeznik]

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


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

[loupeznik]

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

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

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

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

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

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

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

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

[thuja]

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

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

[BarryDonegan]

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

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

[loupeznik]

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

[BarryDonegan]

if weapon vs. weapon deterrance didn't work, the whole world would be a sheet of glass from nukes right now.

[STA654]

I'd like to see someone hijack a plane when other people on the plane are armed.

That's make a good action move.

"red eye shoot-out"

[dircha]

He needs to drop that from his speeches.

Here is what Time Magazine heard:

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

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

You don't seem to understand. The issue isn't that the passengers weren't armed, although that would have solved the problem as well.

The issue is that the federal government has come in and denied these private sector companies the right to place armed security guards and armed pilots on their own flights.

This is clearly unconstitutional.

In other speeches Congressman Paul has clarified that all he is saying is that it should be up to the airlines to make these decisions themselves. I will agree, however, that if he is going to make this point in speeches, he should clearly make the point that what is at issue is that the federal government has denied airlines the right to make these decisions.

Instead of protecting us, in this case government has come in and denied us protection.

I can tell you given the choice in a free market, I would definitely choose the flight with armed security guards or at least an armed pilot.

[jj111]

And I'm also sure that no airline would let just anyone bring a gun on a plane and rightfully so.


I believe prior to the 1960's passengers were permitted to bring their own guns onto planes.....

I don't think they ever had any problems as a result of that policy back then.

[jj111]

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

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

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

I guess I didn't understand how that rhetoric could have worked in RP's favor. I wonder if RP and/or his advisers are so smart that they do this intentionally?

[billv]

He needs to drop that from his speeches.

Here is what Time Magazine heard:

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

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

That article is a piece of garbage anyway.