National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced

Status
Not open for further replies.
Name something the federal government stepped in and fixed... *crickets*

Now name something the federal government messed up by getting involved...

1. Mortgage meltdown
2. Banking crisis
3. Oil costs skyrocketing
4. Obama bailouts
5. Waco
6. Ruby Ridge
7. Bay of Pigs
8. NOLA = Katrina

I'm sure I missed a lot on both sides but the messups come more readily to mind for some reason.
Click to expand...

Disallowing guns on airliners made 09/11/2001 possible.

People armed only with box knives brought down 4 airliners, 2 of the largest buildings in the world, a section of the Department of Defense building of the world's most powerful nation, and nearly 3,000 people supposedly "kept safe" by keeping arms off airliners. If that doesn't make you want to cry, you're a terrorist. If you have anything to do with making such law or failing to repeal such law prior to or after the events of 09/11/2001, you're a heartless, ignorant, and in all probability stupid wretch. You'll answer to God. He doesn't forget. I remember it well, too. I vote.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood
 
Disallowing guns on airliners made 09/11/2001 possible.
Click to expand...


thats a load of BS right there... people doing nothing is what let 9/11 happen. if they had been allowed to have guns, they would have used guns to take over the plane rather then box cutters.
 
people doing nothing is what let 9/11 happen.
Click to expand...

People being TOLD for YEARS to do nothing, by their own government, is what caused that.

The anti mindset of "let the police handle it" got us to this point.

In a culture that allows guns on airplanes, the ingrained "do nothing" response would not have been there.
 
thats a load of BS right there... people doing nothing is what let 9/11 happen.
Click to expand...

People DID do something. On flight 93, some of the passengers broke the law and used their cell phones, found out what was going on, and rushed the terrorists/hijackers. The terrorists/hijackers on the other three planes were unopposed and the passengers were unaware of their destiny.

As for the terrorists using guns instead of box cutters, some of the passengers - maybe even more than the 4 or 5 terrorists on each plane - would have been armed. I do believe, in hindsight, a gun fight on those planes would have resulted in fewer deaths.

With armed passengers, the terrorists would have had to kill everyone who would have been armed, and possibly everyone aboard to prevent a rush on them. All the terrorists wanted was the airliners for use as missiles. With armed passengers there would have been a fighting chance - a fighting chance at survival, not just bringing the plane down before it could be used as a missile.

The option to fight back with equal or superior arms rather than curl up and die was an option forbidden by law to the passengers on those flights.

Woody
 
The chances that 1 passenger on a plane legally CCW would be very, very low. Even if there was 1, the chances of him taking out 4 people also armed is even lower.
 
There are 300,000,000 people in this country, and at present, about 80,000,000 gun owners. That's 1 out of every 3 3/4 people own a gun. With 200 people on a typical flight, that's about 53 gun owners. Now, figure that with no infringements upon the RKBA, only 10% of those gun owners would need to carry to put 5 guns on each plane. I'd have 2. My wife would have 2.

I think my estimate is conservative.

TAB said:
The chances that 1 passenger on a plane legally CCW would be very, very low. Even if there was 1, the chances of him taking out 4 people also armed is even lower.
Click to expand...

The terrorists were spread out along the cabin, and at least one was flying the plane, and one guarding the cocpit. The terrorists are watching at least fifty people each. All it takes is patients and good timing to take out the terrorists one at a time.

You'd be suprised what someone not resigned to be a victim can accomplish.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as the right to keep and bear arms is so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood
 
Cowboy:

The terrorists did their homework. All four flights were fairly empty. The fullest plane had 81 passengers, and one only had 37. Made their job much easier. But this is getting off topic.

Leave CCW to the states.
 
Woody how many people have CCWs? How many of those have had decent training? How many of those would have acted vs 4 heavly armed and trained terrorists? ( remember pre 9/11 no one had any idea what was going to happen.)
 
TAB said:
Woody how many people have CCWs? How many of those have had decent training? How many of those would have acted vs 4 heavly armed and trained terrorists? ( remember pre 9/11 no one had any idea what was going to happen.)
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter how many would have had CCW permits. In my scenario, no one needs one. As for the decent training, if you can aim and shoot, you pretty much got it. There is not a whole lot of tactics beyond 'duck' in a gun fight in a tube.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a blood bath, but at least it wouldn't have been a gun free killing zone like Virginia Tech, Columbine and the rest.

Had those planes not been gun free killing zones, the terrorists might have had second thoughts. Like JoeShmoe said, the terrorists did their homework. Adding the possibility of armed citizens aboard surely would have made them think twice. As it turned out, the terrorists were successful with only three of the four flights with NO armed citizens aboard.

It sure would have been better had the terrorists been successful with only two, one, or none of their hijackings.

I hold to my statement: "Disallowing guns on airliners made 09/11/2001 possible."

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood
 
It was not a lack of weapons by that passengers that allowed those two planes to be taken over. It was a lack of the proper mindset. And this lack of mindset was not the fault of the passengers. Up until 9-11, no one had ever used a jet airliner as a suicide weapon. I am sure the passengers thought they were simply being hijacked and would be traded back to the US.

I believe that even if the passengers had been armed with guns, no one would have likely used them, because they probably had no idea they were about to be killed.
 
The terrorists were not heavily armed... they had boxcutters. In a tube, with little cover and concealment, 1 gunman with a modicum of training and experience can pick off 4 knife wielders who would not have a chance at boxing him in with manuevers.

Of course, there would be collateral considerations of them cutting other passengers or whatnot, but if you don't give up your gun, you would have a fighting chance at taking them out.

However, that is presuming the terrorists would not be carrying guns themselves. If there were 4 gun toting terrorists, it would be very different. I see some bullets perforating the fuselage and creating some crashed planes instead.
 
... Up until 9-11, no one had ever used a jet airliner as a suicide weapon. I am sure the passengers thought they were simply being hijacked and would be traded back to the US.
Click to expand...

That's quite possible, but speculation. We'll never know. Though this is pure speculation on my part, I believe someone might have figured out that this wasn't a "normal" hijacking. Typically, the regular pilots are forced to fly somewhere like Cuba. If the planes were being hijacked for anything other than as missiles, the terrorists wouldn't have needed to fly the planes themselves. There is no way any one of the regular pilots would have flown the planes into those buildings at the behest of the terrorists.



Regardless, those passengers on the four planes that were taken over didn't have the option of shooting the terrorists, did they.

Using hijacked airliners as guided missiles had been speculated. It was no stroke of genius on the part of the terrorists, just an exploitation of the conducive circumstances courtesy of unconstitutional law.

Congress is not off the hook.

I didn't see anything in this bill that would alleviate this problem. What good is concealed carry from state to state without being able to carry on your way there - especially in the light of the happenings of 09/11/2001?

This bill is nothing more than a placation designed to stop us hounding them about the infringements on our right to carry. If this were a bill about unfettering our right to carry, it would remove law infringing the right in stead of covering it up.


Woody
 
However, that is presuming the terrorists would not be carrying guns themselves. If there were 4 gun toting terrorists, it would be very different. I see some bullets perforating the fuselage and creating some crashed planes instead.
Click to expand...

Even if the planes were brought down, it's better than flying them into buildings. But, there has been extensive testing done on airliners with holes being shot in them and nothing happens beyond some whistling.

I've worked on airliners and found rivets missing from the pressure vessel with no complaints.

There was an airliner that had a four foot long crack in it's skin just above the junction where the wing and fuselage join together, underneath the wing butt fairing. There was a dark gray "stain" spreading out from the crack where the two sides of the crack chaffed and the resulting residue was blown out of the crack by the cabin pressure. This wasn't discovered until a periodic inspection had been performed. (If it wasn't in such a sturdy section of the plane, it could have been disastrous). The point being that it takes a whole lot more than a few bullet holes to bring down an airliner.

I didn't work on this one, but I believe it was a DC 10 that lost a great big chunk of fuselage around a forward galley service door or passenger door, while cruising at altitude, and it was able to land safely.

There is no logical reason to forbid law abiding citizens to carry guns on planes. Time was it wasn't forbidden. Time was airline pilots were required to carry guns because they carried mail on most regular airlines.

Woody
 
True, it takes more than a few small arm bullet holes in the fuselage... but if it hits a fuel line or an engine part or the pilot as the gun battle rages....
 
Okay, Notorious, Airliner A&P from a guy who's been on the assembly-line floor:

Fuel tanks are in the wings and tailgroup, not fuselage except for around the wing. Lines thus run only in the rear-half, and jet fuel's a lot less volatile than shown on TV.

Pilot? At the risk of sounding cold (which you have to be as a tactician, or any kind of contingency-planner at all for that matter), that's why you got two butts in those front seats rather than a guy and a dog.

Engines? Pretty durable against pistol rounds, IIRC. Now a .30-06 might be a problem...
 
Thanks, just wondering out loud. Always good to have someone who knows.

So, you guys would say handguns are pretty safe to shoot in a moving airplane, then?
 
Wouldn't be my first choice of where to have a gunfight, but then again if I had a choice I wouldn't have to go into a gunfight to begin with. IMO, bearing in mind I'm a "frequent line visitor" (my mother works for Boeing, so I crash every open-house and rollout she can get me into, which is how I've been on the 737, 747, 767, 777, and defunct 757 lines so much, and picked brains of some of the machinists who do build 'em), your biggest worry is ricochet, or backstop before the cockpit, or if your aim is less-than-true and results in "collateral"... or if you happen to hit a pocket of turbulence while taking the shot. BTW, didn't intend to come off like I was rippin' ya a new one.

That said, while I'm a gifted amateur who puts pro-level study into the field, I'm no Delta or SWAT trooper, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
 
I agree. Obviously, there are not enough people in Illinois who care about their gun rights to vote in decent politicians. Illinois citizens have elected some of the most anti-gun politicians we have ever had. Obama and Daly are two examples.
Click to expand...
Thats the whole problem. The entire downstate doesnt have the ability to fight and beat the chicago machine. The voting policy for the chicago dems is "vote early and often"

Come on, you are seriously blaming this on the bad economy? What about 2 years ago? What was your excuse then?
Click to expand...
I didnt say anything about the economy, you did. Two years ago? Hmm, let me think. I guess I was doing the same thing I am now. Working, paying a mortgage, raising a child. It makes it hard to look for jobs out of state when you are doing all that. I must say, you are truly something to strive for, with your instant ability to pass judgement on anothers motivation and deem his "excuses" unacceptable. I guess the hapiness of my child in school with his friends and my home that I am paying off is too much to make me move somewhere where I dont have a home or a job and start over. Its not as easy as picking up and moving, in case you werent aware of that (I imagine from your post there is a lot you are unaware of.)
 
Not to wander off topic, but to defeat the Chicago political machine, amend the Illinois Constitution to have the Illinois Senate populated by one person from each county instead of apportioned and Gerrymandered into equally populated districts. That way, nothing will get passed that ain't good for both Cook County and downstate.

Woody
 
Not to wander off topic, but to defeat the Chicago political machine, amend the Illinois Constitution to have the Illinois Senate populated by one person from each county instead of apportioned and Gerrymandered into equally populated districts. That way, nothing will get passed that ain't good for both Cook County and downstate.
Click to expand...
Thats way easier said than done. You would first have to persuade all those chicago politicians to willingly give up the power they have. Thats not going to happen. I am sure everyone here has been watching the public corruption show going on. That is chicago politics at its finest. It holds the rest of us hostage.
 
I guess the hapiness of my child in school with his friends and my home that I am paying off is too much to make me move somewhere where I dont have a home or a job and start over. Its not as easy as picking up and moving, in case you werent aware of that (I imagine from your post there is a lot you are unaware of.)
Click to expand...

If you don't want to move, and can't change anything, then at least quit your bitching about it. You have traded your 2nd amendment rights to be able to stay in an anti gun state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
National Right-To-Carry Bill
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
LAK
L
M
  • Locked
SENATE VERSION OF NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ranger335v
R
jimmyraythomason
  • Locked
Right-to-carry reciprocity bill
Replies
6
Views
395
LAR-15
L
J
  • Locked
New bills for national CCW recognition introduced!
Replies
2
Views
488
Vitamin G
V
P
  • Locked
Stearns Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
Replies
2
Views
381
gc70
gc70
Back
Top