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.
Guns . . .
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Guns . . .
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 4, 2002; Page A17
Careful readers of this column will remember when, some years back, I was burglarized. It was the middle of the night, sometime around 3 a.m., when I heard a noise -- the back door being forced open. I awoke with a start, tried to quiet my thumping heart, rushed to the head of the stairs and heard someone running around the floor below. At that moment, what I wanted more than anything in the world was a gun.
What I wanted at that moment -- and only that moment, I hasten to add -- was denied last month to airline pilots who just might have to deal with a terrorist somehow getting into the cockpit. That this decision was made by the pro-gun Bush administration only deepens the mystery. If I were a pilot, I would want a gun in the cockpit. And in every survey, most pilots say they do.
The gun I would want would not be carried on my person. It would not be on me when I went to the bathroom or left the cockpit for any reason. It would be in a secure location, accessible only to someone who knew a code, and while it might be loaded with bullets that could stop a man but not penetrate the fuselage, even conventional ammo does not present an unacceptable risk. Planes don't deflate like balloons from one or two bullet holes. And, anyway, air marshals and other law enforcement officers already fly not only armed but with conventional ammo.
This gun would be used only as a last resort to stop a terrorist from gaining control of the plane. It's probably not too much to say that if pilots had had weapons on Sept. 11, the attacks might have been averted. A man with a box cutter is no match for a man with a gun.
The union that represents the pilots, the 62,000-member Air Line Pilots Association, favors having a weapon in the cockpit. Not all pilots agree, of course. Some of them feel that arming pilots would distract from the real job at hand -- making the cockpit as secure as possible as quickly as possible. This includes, among other things, bulletproof cockpit doors that can't be broken down. It also includes beefing up the air marshal program. After all, El Al, Israel's national airline, does not arm its pilots and has not had a hijacking since 1968. It uses sky marshals.
But El Al has only 34 airplanes. The United States has more than 20,000 flights a day. It will be a long time, if ever, before there's a sky marshal on every flight. That cannot, of course, be said for pilots. Every flight has at least one.
Back in 1995, when he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a bill giving Texans the right to carry a concealed weapon. The bill insisted only that the gun-toters be at least 21, pass a criminal background check and have no history of mental illness. I can only hope that pilots already meet those criteria.
If that's the case, then why is it somehow logical to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack some heat but to forbid that same right to airline pilots, who, I may point out, often are ex-military people? Regardless, they would all be trained in the use of the gun, and their first duty, always, would be to fly the plane -- no matter what. Only if a terrorist somehow managed to gain access to the cockpit would the pilot use the weapon. Could even a stray shot be worse than a commandeered plane on a terrorist mission?
I am, like all reasonable people, in favor of the tightest restrictions on guns. I fear the things, since they are easily concealed and lethal. The more there are, the more chances they will fall into the wrong hands. That is precisely what I feared the night I was burglarized -- not that the burglar had a knife (I had scissors), but a gun.
But even in my most anti-NRA moods, I want the cops to be armed, since, among other things, just by being so, they deter crime. Armed pilots would also be a deterrent. A terrorist would not be dealing with the chance that an air marshal is aboard but the certainty that, in the cockpit, is a gun and a person -- cool enough to be an airline pilot -- who is cool enough to use it. Just one night in my life, I wanted a gun. On just one flight, a pilot might feel the same way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54438-2002Jun3.html
c 2002 The Washington Post Company
"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
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 4, 2002; Page A17
Careful readers of this column will remember when, some years back, I was burglarized. It was the middle of the night, sometime around 3 a.m., when I heard a noise -- the back door being forced open. I awoke with a start, tried to quiet my thumping heart, rushed to the head of the stairs and heard someone running around the floor below. At that moment, what I wanted more than anything in the world was a gun.
What I wanted at that moment -- and only that moment, I hasten to add -- was denied last month to airline pilots who just might have to deal with a terrorist somehow getting into the cockpit. That this decision was made by the pro-gun Bush administration only deepens the mystery. If I were a pilot, I would want a gun in the cockpit. And in every survey, most pilots say they do.
The gun I would want would not be carried on my person. It would not be on me when I went to the bathroom or left the cockpit for any reason. It would be in a secure location, accessible only to someone who knew a code, and while it might be loaded with bullets that could stop a man but not penetrate the fuselage, even conventional ammo does not present an unacceptable risk. Planes don't deflate like balloons from one or two bullet holes. And, anyway, air marshals and other law enforcement officers already fly not only armed but with conventional ammo.
This gun would be used only as a last resort to stop a terrorist from gaining control of the plane. It's probably not too much to say that if pilots had had weapons on Sept. 11, the attacks might have been averted. A man with a box cutter is no match for a man with a gun.
The union that represents the pilots, the 62,000-member Air Line Pilots Association, favors having a weapon in the cockpit. Not all pilots agree, of course. Some of them feel that arming pilots would distract from the real job at hand -- making the cockpit as secure as possible as quickly as possible. This includes, among other things, bulletproof cockpit doors that can't be broken down. It also includes beefing up the air marshal program. After all, El Al, Israel's national airline, does not arm its pilots and has not had a hijacking since 1968. It uses sky marshals.
But El Al has only 34 airplanes. The United States has more than 20,000 flights a day. It will be a long time, if ever, before there's a sky marshal on every flight. That cannot, of course, be said for pilots. Every flight has at least one.
Back in 1995, when he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a bill giving Texans the right to carry a concealed weapon. The bill insisted only that the gun-toters be at least 21, pass a criminal background check and have no history of mental illness. I can only hope that pilots already meet those criteria.
If that's the case, then why is it somehow logical to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack some heat but to forbid that same right to airline pilots, who, I may point out, often are ex-military people? Regardless, they would all be trained in the use of the gun, and their first duty, always, would be to fly the plane -- no matter what. Only if a terrorist somehow managed to gain access to the cockpit would the pilot use the weapon. Could even a stray shot be worse than a commandeered plane on a terrorist mission?
I am, like all reasonable people, in favor of the tightest restrictions on guns. I fear the things, since they are easily concealed and lethal. The more there are, the more chances they will fall into the wrong hands. That is precisely what I feared the night I was burglarized -- not that the burglar had a knife (I had scissors), but a gun.
But even in my most anti-NRA moods, I want the cops to be armed, since, among other things, just by being so, they deter crime. Armed pilots would also be a deterrent. A terrorist would not be dealing with the chance that an air marshal is aboard but the certainty that, in the cockpit, is a gun and a person -- cool enough to be an airline pilot -- who is cool enough to use it. Just one night in my life, I wanted a gun. On just one flight, a pilot might feel the same way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54438-2002Jun3.html
c 2002 The Washington Post Company
"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
ROCKY HILL (AP)-- June 04, 2002
The town of Rocky Hill is being challenged by the National Rifle Association over a town ordinance that forbids people from carrying firearms in town parks.
The issue came to light a few weeks ago when members of the NRA confronted the town council at its meeting about the ordinance, which deals with behavior in parks and recreation areas.
The council was slated to consider changing language in the ordinance to allow park rules to address excessive noise, which has become an issue at Maxwell Park, Town Clerk Barbara Gilbert said Thursday.
"We very innocently go into this meeting, and the next thing we know is that members of the NRA as well as an attorney ... start talking about how we do not have the right to prohibit the carrying of legal firearms within our parks," Gilbert said.
Citing a 1984 state Supreme Court decision that forbids towns from writing laws regulating the sale of guns, the NRA claims the Rocky Hill ordinance, which says citizens cannot carry guns in a park, is illegal.
"A town government such as Rocky Hill gets its authority to do things from a state statute," Ralph Sherman, an attorney and member of the NRA, recently said. "If the state legislature wanted towns to override a state permit to carry handguns, there would have to be a state statute to say the towns could do that."
Town attorney Mike Heneghan is still reviewing the issue.
Mayor Barbara Surwilo said she has concerns about touching the ordinance, but she said the town will make a decision based on Heneghan's findings.
"My opinion is that guns and parks do not mix. It's hard to imagine a kid eating a hot dog when someone with a gun is next to him. It's not my idea of what a park is," Surwilo said.
cThe Herald 2002 http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4330409&BRD=1641&PAG=461&dept_id=10110
"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
Like in the NFL, defense is the key.
By the way, I wonder if he realizes that the same constitution which protects him with his 1st amendment job with the press allows us to carry firearms. How would he feel if the government started "word control"? Certain "dangerous looking" words would not be allowed. Just for safety's sake, after all. I think he would protest that rather forcefully, don't you?
**It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to ammendment 2, United States Constitution.**
Edited by - Rob Greene on 06/05/2002 22:23:06
People who like the 1st A but not the 2nd would say that words aren't dangerous but guns are. That's wrong, of course. How many people have been killed because of the words in Mein Kampf or the Koran for that matter?
But don't worry, the 1st A is headed down the toilet now also, at least for common citizens who want to band together to express their collective opinion on candidates in an election.