Should A American Citizen With No Disqualifyers Be Able to Board a Train,Bus or Plane With a Gun?

21H40 said:

I used to be a hardcore advocate for make it legal for everyone everywhere. The last few years I’ve seen a lot of examples of citizens making some poor choices, and I am no longer certain.

Last week a citizen without red flags freaked out and killed her Uber driver. I don’t want that to happen on my plane, train or bus.

Click to expand...

Maybe people need some kinda permit to carry on a plane.

dogtown tom said:

Your Second Amendment rights don't extend to my property.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but the Heller opinion stated that guns can be banned from "sensitive places" such as schools, courthouses, government buildings, and (presumably) modes of transportation.

Ironically, a type of venue that typically bans loaded guns is (wait for it)....gun shows. If loaded guns can be banned from gun shows, they can surely be banned from airplanes.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have as broad a scope as many here seem to think it has.

Commercial planes or private planes?

JimCunn said:

Commercial planes or private planes?

Click to expand...

Guns aren't banned on private planes currently.

Plano11 said:

Maybe people need some kinda permit to carry on a plane.

Click to expand...

At this point I would also consider supporting a permit requirement for people to vote, drive, and participate in politics

21H40 said:

At this point I would also consider supporting a permit requirement for people to vote, drive, and participate in politics

Click to expand...

Just my opinion or suggestions. I know there are air Marshall to maintain order in the plane. Have a permit to fly with a gun isn’t the worst of idea. Everyone carry isn’t such a bad idea too.

Only read the first page of posts, but I'll chime in anyway. I think it should be legal on busses and trains (and especially subways!!!), but not commercial planes. That said, I don't travel on busses, trains, or subways exactly for security reasons, and planes for health reasons. If I can't drive there I don't go there.

I would also like to point out a problem with the way the question is stated here: A person can technically have no disqualifiers but actually be quite psychologically unstable. Consider the mass shooters who legitimately passed the background checks for their weapons... Which is not a reason to ban guns anywhere, but the phrasing implies that anyone without "disqualifiers" will be harmless.

CDW4ME said:

I'm contentedly armed in my daily activities, have been for a long time and like it that way.

Click to expand...

Me too. My short description of how being armed makes me feel is "like a grownup".

.

old lady new shooter said:

I would also like to point out a problem with the way the question is stated here: A person can technically have no disqualifiers but actually be quite psychologically unstable. Consider the mass shooters who legitimately passed the background checks for their weapons... Which is not a reason to ban guns anywhere, but the phrasing implies that anyone without "disqualifiers" will be harmless.

Click to expand...

Yes, and member are commenting that a bullet hole isn't going to take down a plane, and they are okay with everyone who wants to carrying on a plane as well. Well I wouldn't want to be on a plan 7 miles in the air when a gun fight breaks out between armed passengers and a mass shooter(s), and several rounds are put through the plane and even windows. I don't want to be hit by friendly or assailant fire with no access to a doctor or hospital. Even worse, several armed people with an agenda all on the same plane. We I've seen countless videos of passengers acting a fool in the air and planes having to land because of it, and as you pointed out, there have been many mass shooters who purchased their firearms legally. Salvador Ramos killed 22 and injured 18 people at Robb Elementary School in Texas with firearms he legally purchased.

I feel like some are being idealistic and not realistic when it comes to planes, but in any event, civilians will NEVER be allowed to carry a firearm on airplanes, the overwhelming super majority of Americans wouldn't support it OR book flights on airlines that did allow it, so it's all a moot point and poll.

old lady new shooter said:

I would also like to point out a problem with the way the question is stated here: A person can technically have no disqualifiers but actually be quite psychologically unstable. Consider the mass shooters who legitimately passed the background checks for their weapons... Which is not a reason to ban guns anywhere, but the phrasing implies that anyone without "disqualifiers" will be harmless.

Click to expand...

Kinda depends on the disqualifiers. As you implied, the OP meant "current legal gun ownership disqualifiers" (I'm pretty sure). If we asked the same question but changed how we're defining "disqualifiers" so that those who had not achieved a particular level of training were disqualified, I would imagine that the poll results would be different.

As an American? Yes, as the founders intended.

As a socialistic American? Lets put qualifiers on our freedom.

That'll never end, but here we are, discussing what qualifiers we should put on freedom.

Most people believe in freedom, until they see it.

Most people believe in free speech, until the hear it...

onibaba said:

As an American? Yes, as the founders intended.

As a socialistic American? Lets put qualifiers on our freedom.

That'll never end, but here we are, discussing what qualifier we should put on freedom.

Most people believe in freedom, until they see it.

Most people believe in free speech, until the hear it...

Click to expand...

All freedoms have always had "qualifiers" placed on then even back when the founders were around. I don't believe they ever intended there not to be. For example, they believed in free speech; however, everyone couldn't speak out of turn, yell, scream, or shout out everyone who was talking while in court and sessions when the founders were debating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the founder who were pro freedom of speech wouldn't have allowed or put up with that thus even with them free speech had "qualifiers" applied under certain narrow circumstances.

if they have no disqualifiers, what would prevent them from doing so? if they can't, that implies there is some disqualifier in place.

Mixed authority here. Interstate bus lines are typically private enterprises, whereas municipal bus lines are managed by civil governments. Domestic airlines in the US operate (even those with government investments) as private enterprises. Travel Trains (also again despite government investments) tend to be operated by private entities, while municipal transportation/subways/trolley’s/etc are most typically operated by the municipality.

Supporting the Second Amendment, I recognize still the right of a property owner and business operator to be able to make their own decisions. In my home and in my business properties, I have authority over who can and who can’t carry a gun. If American Airlines or United or Delta exercise the same right, I have no beef.

film495 said:

if they have no disqualifiers, what would prevent them from doing so? if they can't, that implies there is some disqualifier in place.

Click to expand...

He's talking about things that disqualify them from owning a firearm, i.e. felonies, drug addiction, domestic violence misdemeanors etc.

There is a direct correlation in timeline between the outlawing of privately carried firearms on airliners in the early 60's
and the rise in incidents of airliner hijackings in the mid to late '60's, through the 70s.

silicosys4 said:

There is a direct correlation in timeline between the outlawing of privately carried firearms on airliners in the early 60's
and the rise in incidents of airliner hijackings in the mid to late '60's, through the 70s.

Click to expand...

True. We must remember though that correlation does not equal causation. For example, there is a direct correlation between the rise in the use of seat belts and astronaut fatalities, yet few would suggest that the two are related.

Styx said:

All freedoms have always had "qualifiers" placed on then even back when the founders were around. I don't believe they ever intended there not to be. For example, they believed in free speech; however, everyone couldn't speak out of turn, yell, scream, or shout out everyone who was talking while in court and sessions when the founders were debating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the founder who were pro freedom of speech wouldn't have allowed or put up with that thus even with them free speech had "qualifiers" applied under certain narrow circumstances.

Click to expand...

One can hardly equate decorum with curtailing freedoms. Once the camel's nose is in the tent there is no turning back. But lets not pretend that the founding father stuck the camel's nose in there because they used Robert's Rules of Order...

onibaba said:

One can hardly equate decorum with curtailing freedoms. Once the camel's nose is in the tent there is no turning back. But lets not pretend that the founding father stuck the camel's nose in there because they used Robert's Rules of Order...

Click to expand...

Is it or was it simply decorum if it's force and there are repercussions if and when a person chooses to exercise their free speech and ignore decorum? Even today in federal court's you can't speak when you want to and say what you want aka exercise free speech to without facing jail time, fines, etc.

bearcreek said:

True. We must remember though that correlation does not equal causation. For example, there is a direct correlation between the rise in the use of seat belts and astronaut fatalities, yet few would suggest that the two are related.

Click to expand...

The old saying: "Correlation does not imply causation."

Sidenote:
Interesting fact, according to a book:

Around 1961 or so, Lee Harvey Oswald sometimes carried his Carcano rifle on city buses—

—- in Dallas TX in order to Practice in the river area.

Maybe his Carcano was wrapped in paper or a rifle case?

Styx said:

I just rather not get on plane with any holes on it period.

Click to expand...

All aircraft have to have any number of "holes" in them just to exist. (From a geometric aspect, there's no "inside" to a solid plane.)
Jet engine is a giant hole through and through, if with some intervening "bits" to make it work.
An aircraft with no holes in it would mean you'd need to bring your own tank of breathing air.
If we are putting a fine point on it, most aircraft are only pressurized to around 8-9psi, any more creates even more discomfort for passengers (only takes about 1/2" of water column to cause discomfort at the 75th percentile).

Also, as any aircraft maintainer--there's no such thing as a "perfectly good aircraft"

Mark_Mark said:

I would even opt for a Underwear only policy!

Click to expand...

Shoot, far too many seem to have stopped dressing at "underwear" and barely that, as is. The number of open-toed shoes is directly proportional to how awful the exposed toes look, too.

CapnMac said:

All aircraft have to have any number of "holes" in them just to exist. (From a geometric aspect, there's no "inside" to a solid plane.)
Jet engine is a giant hole through and through, if with some intervening "bits" to make it work.
An aircraft with no holes in it would mean you'd need to bring your own tank of breathing air.
If we are putting a fine point on it, most aircraft are only pressurized to around 8-9psi, any more creates even more discomfort for passengers (only takes about 1/2" of water column to cause discomfort at the 75th percentile).

Also, as any aircraft maintainer--there's no such thing as a "perfectly good aircraft"


Shoot, far too many seem to have stopped dressing at "underwear" and barely that, as is. The number of open-toed shoes is directly proportional to how awful the exposed toes look, too.

Click to expand...

I better not post a pick of my toes then!