TexasCHLforum.com

lrb111 wrote:Oh man, good luck.. That's one of my fears.
It's also one of the reasons I think CHLs should be allowed to carry on the plane. Even if they have to carry frangibles.

I'll have to disagree here. FAM's and Secret Service are the only guys carrying in the passenger cabin, and they have the most stringent shooting proficiency requirements. I've seen some CHL's shoot and would not want them playing hero at 30,000 ft with myself and others.

Our opinions can differ for sure, these are just my musings.

-nick

gigag04 wrote:

lrb111 wrote:Oh man, good luck.. That's one of my fears.
It's also one of the reasons I think CHLs should be allowed to carry on the plane. Even if they have to carry frangibles.

I'll have to disagree here. FAM's and Secret Service are the only guys carrying in the passenger cabin, and they have the most stringent shooting proficiency requirements. I've seen some CHL's shoot and would not want them playing hero at 30,000 ft with myself and others.

Our opinions can differ for sure, these are just my musings.

-nick

Having 1 Joe Average CHLer in a plane with a half dozen Hell bent Muslim terrorist pigs couldn't possibly make the situation worse.

gigag04 wrote:

lrb111 wrote:Oh man, good luck.. That's one of my fears.
It's also one of the reasons I think CHLs should be allowed to carry on the plane. Even if they have to carry frangibles.

I'll have to disagree here. FAM's and Secret Service are the only guys carrying in the passenger cabin, and they have the most stringent shooting proficiency requirements. I've seen some CHL's shoot and would not want them playing hero at 30,000 ft with myself and others.

Our opinions can differ for sure, these are just my musings.

-nick

I'm coming from the strict constitutionalist view of the 2nd amendment.
IMO. it makes no difference. Trust is trust, on the ground or in the air.
I don't look for Any excuses to disallow CHLs anywhere, and it is my stance to oppose any rulings that infringe.

For me, It's not a personal "warrior" mindset, it just reinstatement of 2nd amendment.

gigag04 wrote:

lrb111 wrote:Oh man, good luck.. That's one of my fears.
It's also one of the reasons I think CHLs should be allowed to carry on the plane. Even if they have to carry frangibles.

I'll have to disagree here. FAM's and Secret Service are the only guys carrying in the passenger cabin, and they have the most stringent shooting proficiency requirements. I've seen some CHL's shoot and would not want them playing hero at 30,000 ft with myself and others.

Our opinions can differ for sure, these are just my musings.

-nick

Nick,
That's not the attitude that the folks on the United flight 93 that crashed outside of Stonycreek Township, Sommerset county, Pennsylvania into that harmless field and not into the United States Capitol or the White House. Think of the lives that they saved by sacraficing their own.

It is well documented (by cell phone records) that they fought back because they had heard of what had already happened that day, and now their flight was being hijacked as well. These people weren't sheep.

What would have happened if Flight 11 or any of the other two had not been sheep?

The passengers of Flight 93 fought back and crashed that plane into innocent farmland so that many, many more might live on the ground.

If one of them had been able to carry a weapon, as a total surprise to the terrorists, maybe, just maybe, they could have rushed them--as they did--and captured the ones in the cabin, then they could have killed or wounded the ones in the cabin then they might not all have had to perish.

Now, the ones in the cabin had probably already killed the pilots, but... but someone could have gotten on the radio and had help talking the plane down to a semi-safe landing.

These people, men and women and children, are hero's and not one of them had a firearm or knife.

Think of the possibility of a proven law-abiding citizen, carrying his own personal -- and very concealed-- weapon, a person who is not there to hi-jack anyone, think of the confusion amongst the hi-jackers at the sound of that first shot and one of them goes down, and all they had was a box cutter. I'd bet that they'd surrender... just a personal huch. mind you.

The Sky-marshals and FBI and Secret Service, they're great, and yes some CHL'ers can't shoot that great, but I'll bet that they could when those chips are on the line.

Thanks for the chance to vent a bit.
Russ

kw5kw wrote: and all they had was a box cutter.

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

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

casselthief wrote:

kw5kw wrote: and all they had was a box cutter.

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

My post was about what happend on September the eleventh of the year of our Lord two-thousand one.

And, that's all they had--then.

Yep, might be different in the future, but my indication was that CHL'ers (who've been cleared by the FBI and by the State of issuance to be a citizen of the US of A with no felony's, no drug dependency, etc, etc, etc) and Sky Marshals could be the only ones on the plane with a weapon.

No CHL= no weapon of any kind.

They'd still have to smuggle in something and most likely it would not be a gun!

Russ

Point taken.

and thanks, JimmyJames

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

- Jim

You just made my day!

Even if the 2nd were interpreted as it should be, and everyone could have a gun, do you think that 5~6 terrorists with guns would stand a chance against 50+ passengers with guns? That's simple math to me. Would they even try if they knew the high potential for perforation?

I would completely agree with a CHL/Air Marshall only rule though, since they are property of a private company.

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

seamusTX wrote:

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

Your basing your debate on the idea that we would pull a 2A change now. Thats not what I was suggesting. Like you, I think that would be bad. 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. With those folks, I would trust my life. And those terrorists would have shat themselves before meeting Allah.

Thats why I threw in that last line about a CHL/Air Marshall only policy.

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

"could sometimes succeed"?:???: Well, I guess I can't argue with that. That will always be the case, regardless of our self protection habits. But I would much rather have the odds be in the good guys' favor, wouldn't you?

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