What if we had no air security checks?

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Huh?

Did you read that before you posted it?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What is a permit? It is an infringement.

Also, you dont know what i do or what type of training i have.

I know you do not have the same training as an Air Marshall does. I also know your little certificate of completion from Front Sight, or any other school doesnt mean anything other than "thanks for showing up and paying us".

You know what they say about assumption being the mother of all f**k-ups

Yea, I've seen that Steven Seagal movie too.

Any original thoughts of your own, or would you like top continue spewing out lines from bad movies?

Wow. Just wow.
Here ya go:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Show me where this says everyone has the right to concealed carry. I'll wait....
You just dont get it. The right to own a gun is not the same as the right to concealed carry. Nice try though, kiddo.

Lol, my little certificate? Again, quit assuming. You're making yourself look really bad (but you ARE giving me a good laugh).

Steven Segal? Yeah, you've just proven everything i need to know.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sadly, I cannot calculate the odds in the 60s or 70s as I did in my TSA = Terrorist SHAM Authority thread (see signature line) because the BTS doesn't have data prior to 1996, however, a cursory glace at the crash logs at planecrashinfo.com... does not show any marked increase in crashes during the 60s and 70s. I would imagine the % is higher though because there is a greater number of flights departing these days.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The extent of your firearms knowledge is summed up in a single question you asked in another post:

I'm assuming 9mm has a bit more stopping power than .380?

Lol really? Is that even a question that needed to be asked?

Surely someone with your amount of training would already know that answer, wouldnt they?

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

I totally agree with you.
Couldn`t have put it better myself.

Ahhhh....the good old days.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


So in other words, you have no counter, you have nothing of substance to argue. Well played.

Arguing the 2nd Amendment and firearm training with someone who doesnt even know the difference between a 9 and 380 is pointless.

At least get a rudimentary knowledge of guns and constitutional law before you choose to debate it.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

The extent of your firearms knowledge is summed up in a single question you asked in another post:

I'm assuming 9mm has a bit more stopping power than .380?

Lol really? Is that even a question that needed to be asked?

Surely someone with your amount of training would already know that answer, wouldnt they?

edit on 22-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)

Well, for the record, the term 'stopping-power' is a misnomer which means absolutely nothing. But hey, i'm sure you knew that, right?

If these new requirements are because of 911, why are they being instituted almost 10 years later? Have we had a rash of terrorist attacks in that time that I am unaware of? Has the war against terrorism failed so that this is necessary? Sorry EO, that article is just fear spreading. Nothing of any relevance to todays society imo. Just further back up for the gov't in their war against rights.

double

Originally posted by captaintyinknots



Well, for the record, the term 'stopping-power' is a misnomer which means absolutely nothing. But hey, i'm sure you knew that, right?

Of course. Everyone but rank amateurs knows that.

While there is merit to the amount of tissue and hydrostatic damage a given round can do, shot placement is more important.

Exploding the heart is just as easily done with a 22 as it is a .45

Click here for more information.

reply to post by intrepid


Good point.

Maybe the previous administration didn't feel these "measures" were needed?
Perhaps the technology wasn't available ( scanning machines ) 10 years ago?

I dunno, but good point.

Please stay on topic guys. Thanks for your support.

Peace

Back to what this is all about, maybe things are just a little too focussed on interstate airtravel when it should be on international travel instead. I mean, those recent bombs came in on freighters, didn't they? Is it sensible to inconvenience the American public to this extent? What about all that luggage in the belly? Was it as thoroughly checked?

It's all a big money making/job creating show and really protects nobody 100%.

reply to post by intrepid

You have a very good point
What has happened in 10yrs, that we do not know about?

To the other posters
ammo
9x17 .380
9x18 Is what I carry.
9x19 9mm