TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote:I agree, but disarming a populus is not one of them.

I'm not sure if this is a reply to my earlier post.

I am not in favor of disarming the polulace. I think 90% of the gun laws currently in place are useless or harmful.

It just bugs me when people assume that hijackings or any other crime would not occur if more people were armed. That would just be a factor to plan around.

Look, easily half the homes in Texas have firearms (no one knows for sure). Robbers still break in. They get shot regularly, and they still break in.

- Jim

kauboy wrote:But I would much rather have the odds be in the good guys' favor, wouldn't you?

Of course. We're just arguing about the way to achieve it.

Weapons are a solution to a narrow range of problems. You just have to look at Israel, where terrorists will drive vehicles and even run into machine-gun fire to set off a suicide bomb. Other solutions are sometimes required.

- Jim

kauboy wrote:My point was, if we had never bastardized the 2A in the first place, the majority of those passengers would indeed be carrying and would know exactly how to use their gun.

That's completely hypothetical, but what the heck, I just like to argue.

People stopped carrying weapons toward the end of the 19th century, when the frontier was closed and more people lived in cities than not. Then there weren't so many voters conscious of their RKBA to offend, and the folk's in Washington started to infringe.

If it were normal for passengers and pilots to be armed, and always had been, hijackers could get jobs as flight attendants. Hmm?

Also, remember that bandits and pirates could sometimes succeed even back when people were routinely armed.

- Jim

kauboy wrote:Even if ... everyone could have a gun, do you think that 5~6 terrorists with guns would stand a chance against 50+ passengers with guns?

First off, no more than a few percent of passengers would fly with firearms. Even in states where you don't need a license, few carry.

Maybe with the general nervousness about flying these days, people who don't normally carry would carry on planes. Armed, nervous shooters who don't practice often. Wouldn't that be peachy?

Terrorists or criminals who plan their tactics can hold off far larger numbers even of police or military personnel. The passengers would not be organized, and it might be difficult to tell who the terrorists were.

You're right, though. The Sept. 11 attacks were planned to exploit the security situtation in effect at that time. If passengers were armed, they would have used different tactics.

It looks like blowing up the plane in the air is the goal now, not hijacking it.

- Jim

casselthief wrote:why, if everyone can carry, would they have just a box-cutter?

You're sharp today.

At some risk of being a wet blanket, the 2nd Amendment says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not refer to licenses or a requirement to conceal handguns. (Concealable handguns did not exist at the time it was written).

Therefore, if our governments followed the 2nd Amendment, everyone ought to be allowed to carry any weapon, anywhere.

However, most planes are private property (of the airlines) and I can't see their owners allowing passengers to carry. They don't even want pilots to have a pistol in a safe on board.

- Jim

That's good news. Otherwise you would have to change your user name to nogunnowhere.

- Jim