In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

A good time to be armed

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited May 2002 in General Discussion
A good time to be armed
Allan Saxe
Allan Saxe




I am an unlikely supporter of the National Rifle Association and similar groups. I've not fired a gun in more than 40 years. I dislike hunting intensely and believe all firearms to be symbols of a violent society. But I am also a very practical human being.


I supported the Texas law that allowed concealed handguns. I believe strongly in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment guaranteeing private ownership of guns. But I also hold that such gun ownership comes with responsibility and consequences for one's actions.


Since Sept. 11, my support of gun ownership has only intensified.


What if the pilots or others on those ill-fated planes had been armed? The thought of a gunfight on a high-altitude plane is frightening, but the mere appearance of armed pilots and passengers might have turned things around.


I have always believed that humans are inherently violent creatures. That gives no comfort to those who hope for human progress and enlightenment. But because of the violent nature of man, we must deter violence by armed means.


Police are armed. There are armed forces to deter aggressors and terrorists. In an extension of this argument, why not an armed citizenry as well?


One situation supports my idea of an armed citizenry.


About 10 years ago, a student told me a very frightening tale. She was driving alone on Interstate 30 late at night. A car with two men came up alongside hers. They began hurling insults at her, motioning her to pull over. She looked straight ahead, trying not to make any face-to-face contact. They continued their insults and tried to run her car off the highway. The mere description of it is frightening.


However, she always carried a gun with her, as she had night classes and also worked evenings as well. She pulled the gun from her purse and held it up so the two harassing men could plainly view it. The convincing way she held the gun and her determined look made the men drive off without any confrontation.


She was convinced that without the gun, the men would have forced her off the highway. By the way, she knew well how to use firearms.


Since then, the issue of terrorism has become front and center for us all.


Why not have everyone who is willing, trained and licensed to carry legal weapons be allowed to do so? I would feel more comfortable in public places if I knew that many people there might be carrying firearms and knew how to use them.


True, terrorists bent on suicide might not be deterred, but they might be stopped before their horror could be unleashed. This has happened frequently in Israel and others places plagued with terrorism. If terrorism were to be unleashed in this country, as some predict and fear, an armed and responsible citizenry would be a helpful addition to the fight.


Citizens have a right to defend their bodies, their property and their liberty. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." Responsible people have the right - perhaps even the obligation - of defending themselves, their families and their property from terrorism, foreign or domestic.


We do not live in a pleasant world. Those who are against firearms unjustly and unfairly believe that depriving people of legal firearms makes us safer. They are wrong!


Please know that gun use and ownership is commensurate with responsibility. If anyone using a firearm harms the innocent, that person should be held accountable, swiftly and surely. I have always believed in gun ownership, but the tragic events of Sept. 11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism have bolstered my long-held beliefs considerably.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/3205854.htm





"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • JBBooksJBBooks Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    ANYONE who has not read this, needs to......

    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    IMHO

    JBB




    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.
  • William81William81 Member Posts: 25,353 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good article JB...Thank you
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    "A gunfight in a high altitude airplane"??? Not much of a "gunfight" when one of the parties brings a knife. I don't understand why so many people think that if there's a disturbance on an airplane, the first thing that's gonna' happen is that the pilot/co-pilot is going to come out of the cockpit with gun(s) blazing. The armed cockpit crew is to prevent anyone from entering the cockpit. Only when a "goblin" comes through the cockpit door are they supposed to "blaze away". As has been proven many times, a bullet or three through the fuselage is NOT going to cause rapid decompression. I know a lot of airplane drivers. They all agree. Ask any aeronautical engineer.

    Mudge the airplane guy

    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
  • S&W ManS&W Man Member Posts: 208 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What is also interestingg is what is not being told to the public about guns on aircraft. During the seventies there was a rash of hijackings. The gooberment put "Skymarshalls" on aircraft during that time. They were armed with guns. They carried ammunition that was very deadly to a person, but would not penetrate the aircraft. It was fragmental. IT was VERY effective. Most of it was made under special contract and was in special guns. The ammo came preloaded in a cylinder and they changed the whole cylinder to reload. I know this exists as I have some of the cylinders Smith & Wesson made in my collection. I have seen the stuff destroy a hog at a distance of 50 feet. I have also seen it shot at a pontoon boat float tube at five feet amd barely DENT the tube. Why cannot we provide this type of protection to pilots today? we must have the technology to do it even better than thirty years ago. They just dont want the pilots armed as that would go against all their anti gun, liberal bu****it.

    The second admendment GUARANTEES the other nine and the Constitution!
  • Rafter-SRafter-S Member Posts: 2,173 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    JB-- Thanks for the article. I sent it to several others.
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    S&W, have one of those cylinders in my collection, as well; first time I'd heard any first hand descriptions of its field performance. Thanks very much for sharing it.

    Josey & JB - interesting articles . . . thank you, also.
Sign In or Register to comment.