T Nation

Obama Ends Federal Firearms Program

Obama secretly kills off program that allows pilots to carry guns.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/guns-on-a-plane-obama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/

The article says: “Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.”

First, “anti-gun ideology” is where you prohibit people (including pilots) from carrying guns onto planes. And, that, is hardly new.

Secondly, this is not exactly “quiet” if it gets reported in the press.

Furthermore, “risking public safety on airlines” is expecting pilots to come out guns a’blazing instead of flying the plane.

The article says: “Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.”

First, “anti-gun ideology” is where you prohibit people (including pilots) from carrying guns onto planes. And, that, is hardly new.

Secondly, this is not exactly “quiet” if it gets reported in the press.

Furthermore, “risking public safety on airlines” is expecting pilots to come out guns a’blazing instead of flying the plane.

I am personally voting to allow pilots to carry weapons; I do think they should be special guns with special ammo. Like possibly 50 calibers with a projectile that moves slow. May be even like a bean bag.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Furthermore, “risking public safety on airlines” is expecting pilots to come out guns a’blazing instead of flying the plane.[/quote]

More like “filling hijackers full of holes when they try to enter the cockpit”. Air marshalls handle business in the passenger cabin.

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
lixy wrote:

Furthermore, “risking public safety on airlines” is expecting pilots to come out guns a’blazing instead of flying the plane.

More like “filling hijackers full of holes when they try to enter the cockpit”. Air marshalls handle business in the passenger cabin.
[/quote]

No way Lixy could support anti terrorism measures.

He doesn’t want to see any of his brothers killed before they accomplish their mission.

Maybe Obama will disarm the Secret Service.

Ya think?

If not, why not?

What did you expect? Obama ended the war on terror, so now we are safe.

Yes, the nations are basking in His light, and as the terroris^X^X^X^X^X^X enemy combatan^X^X^X^X^X^X^X^X freedom fighters were only doing what they had to do in response to the evil of the United States and now the long nightmare of American imperialism is over, indeed all is well. We’re safe as houses from all adherents to the Religion of Peace. No need for such measures anymore.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
What did you expect? Obama ended the war on terror, so now we are safe.[/quote]

Shit, I’m out of a job now…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Maybe Obama will disarm the Secret Service.

Ya think?

If not, why not?[/quote]

FUCK YEAH! While he’s at it he should disarm our boys in the sandbox and arm them with new negotiation and public speaking skills. This is another stupid fucking move.

If some motherfucker (I really want to use a racial slur) breaks into the cabin after off’ing marshall, the entire crew and passengers are all fucked.

All in the name of Allah. I’m sure the passengers could try and negotiate with the reasonable “Freedom Fighters”.

I’m a very reasonable person, but when I place myself or people that I love in a situation like 9/11 and I know that the Commander in Chief disarmed our only means of survival, well it kinda of makes me a little angry. I guess the Messiah has arrived and we shouldn’t worry anymore.

I support this. We shouldn’t be introducing guns into an environment void of them. Either we should all be allowed to be armed or no one should be allowed to be armed.

mike

Oh, well there being rules against their having any sort of weapon will surely stop the terrorists. You are right!

Just “no one should be allowed to be armed” and that will stop all terrorism. Then they’re not allowed to be armed with anything, don’cha know.

You may have a bright future in the Obama White House with that caliber of thinking! I suggest applying immediately!

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oh, well there being rules against their having any sort of weapon will surely stop the terrorists. You are right!

Just “no one should be allowed to be armed” and that will stop all terrorism. Then they’re not allowed to be armed with anything, don’cha know.

You may have a bright future in the Obama White House with that caliber of thinking! I suggest applying immediately![/quote]

True

Listen knuckleheads, an airplane isn’t a school. You can’t just ignore the gun-free laws on an airplane. Trust me, I’ve had a jackass TSA agent threaten me with a felony for accidently bringing a loaded mag in my carryon.

When I get on an airplane I’m confident there are no guns. If I had my way I’d be allowed to be armed as would anyone else who is legally allowed to be armed in his own home.

What good comes of introducing one gun into an honest to god gun-free-zone? It just means that someone other than me is given the lion’s share of the power on that plane.

We all saw what one man with a gun can do in a classroom when the people lack the courage to rush him. I’ve no reason to think that airline passengers have any more gusto. Add to that cramped quarters and me having to rely on the wits, courage and marksmanship of an airline pilot and the situation is not a safe one. If I cannot trust the skill of a cop to be my sole protector then I certainly cannot trust a pilot with the same responsibility.

To be more specific to your knee-jerk response Bill I will say that I’m not assuming a no gun on airplanes policy (which I do not endorse) would stop terrorism. I’m simply saying that a one gun policy is less effective than a no-gun policy.

No rules will stop terrorists. I’m no dunce. But we can take steps to maximize our effectiveness in fighting terrorism.

mike

O yea this makes perfect sense because we can not trust a pilot with an object that can kill people. I mean the pilot might even hijack his own plane no way should he have a gun.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[/quote]

Don’t try reasoning, Mike. This thread is not about guns. It’s just Obama-bashing for the sake of Obama-bashing.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Listen knuckleheads, an airplane isn’t a school. You can’t just ignore the gun-free laws on an airplane. Trust me, I’ve had a jackass TSA agent threaten me with a felony for accidently bringing a loaded mag in my carryon.

When I get on an airplane I’m confident there are no guns. If I had my way I’d be allowed to be armed as would anyone else who is legally allowed to be armed in his own home.

What good comes of introducing one gun into an honest to god gun-free-zone? It just means that someone other than me is given the lion’s share of the power on that plane.

We all saw what one man with a gun can do in a classroom when the people lack the courage to rush him. I’ve no reason to think that airline passengers have any more gusto. Add to that cramped quarters and me having to rely on the wits, courage and marksmanship of an airline pilot and the situation is not a safe one. If I cannot trust the skill of a cop to be my sole protector then I certainly cannot trust a pilot with the same responsibility.

To be more specific to your knee-jerk response Bill I will say that I’m not assuming a no gun on airplanes policy (which I do not endorse) would stop terrorism. I’m simply saying that a one gun policy is less effective than a no-gun policy.

No rules will stop terrorists. I’m no dunce. But we can take steps to maximize our effectiveness in fighting terrorism.

mike[/quote]

I don’t have a problem with a trained person having a gun, such as a pilot or Air Marshall. Get the training and you give the rest of us a better chance.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Don’t try reasoning, Mike. This thread is not about guns. It’s just Obama-bashing for the sake of Obama-bashing.

[/quote]

Oh please…

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

To be more specific to your knee-jerk response Bill I will say that I’m not assuming a no gun on airplanes policy (which I do not endorse) would stop terrorism. I’m simply saying that a one gun policy is less effective than a no-gun policy. [/quote]

OK, Mr Knee Jerk.

Explain the brilliance of your concept.

Provide us the scenario in which the pilot, trained and licensed to carry a gun in the cockpit, yields a “less effective policy” with regard to terrorism than the pilot not having a gun.

Or explain why, in the one scenario where the gun would come into play – the cockpit being entered by a terrorist or other person threatening lives – it is better for the pilot to be unarmed.

Or did you use the term “knee jerk response” as a projection of your own method of “thinking”?

Perhaps you can do even better in showing us your thought processes by citing an example, in the decades that airline pilots have flown with guns in the cockpit both in the past and the recent few years, of how this caused the problem that you are concerned about and which persuades you against their being authorized to carry a gun.

I mean, a guy like you who bases his statements on actual thought and facts – not, to use your phrase, knee jerk responses – would definitely have that, right? Of course.