Man Exercises Open-Carry Rights By Carrying Loaded Assault Rifle In Airport

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

Yes. A boat can be disabled, but isn't at as much risk. A single bullet on a plane can cause all kinds of major problems, up to causing a loss of control (although that would be the golden bb shot). A single bullet on a boat, unless it's a rubber raft, isn't going to sink it. My only restriction would be on a plane.

There is less chance on a boat of hitting innocents too. There's more room and more cover. They're pretty much lined up in a row on a plane in a very restricted area.

All very good and accurate points (especially the collateral damage component of any transportation accident).

I don't disagree with your concerns.

I am just stubbornly and, perhaps pigheadedly, opposed to the abridgment of self defense in any location or circumstance.

originally posted by: Greathouse
This should cause federal law on carrying weapons at the airports to change . There's always some whack job wanting their 15 minutes of fame that will willingly exercise a loophole .

Hey Chuckles. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is NOT a "loophole".

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp


I understand and, like I said, I am choosing principal over what could be considered "common sense" in this case.

Call me constitutionally orthodox but, I would choose freedom over security any day.

Yeah as I said.......most people and countrys will vehemently disagree with you making such a airline financially unviable.

There is Freedom and just being dangerous and putting multiple peoples life's at risk.

The US constitution matters # all in China or the EU or anywhere else and if other country wont let a commercial plane land then its a useless airline.

Every country disagrees with me.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Very nice thanks. I had seen some videos awhile back of passengers subduing people.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

Plus Should I be free to carry a lighter into a explosive chemical plant? Cause freedom over safety?

You should know not to wear synthetic clothes and roll around on the rug but, I fail to see how an ordinarily deadly weapon is any more deadly when flying (save the statistically unlikely points zaphod makes).

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

Plus Should I be free to carry a lighter into a explosive chemical plant? Cause freedom over safety?

You should know not to wear synthetic clothes and roll around on the rug but, I fail to see how an ordinarily deadly weapon is any more deadly when flying (save the statistically unlikely points zaphod makes).

I don't believe the issue is about structural damage, flight control failure, or decompression of the cabin. I'm of the mindset that the problem lies with 100 or so people in very cramped quarters with very little room for error in shot placement.

An average person can't handle the adrenalin dump that occurs. They're likely to spray all over the place.

a reply to: greencmp

I see a gun on a plane as akin to walking into a theater and yelling fire. Yes we should be able to defend ourselves, but at the same time use common sense.

Now if a requirement is that they take classes, and use frangible rounds, we can talk and find a common ground. But just anyone walking on board with anything, hell no.

I get your position, and on this issue I largely agree with you. But there's way too much than can go wrong and too much risk to innocents on a plane for untrained people to carry there.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

I see a gun on a plane as akin to walking into a theater and yelling fire. Yes we should be able to defend ourselves, but at the same time use common sense.

Now if a requirement is that they take classes, and use frangible rounds, we can talk and find a common ground. But just anyone walking on board with anything, hell no.

I get your position, and on this issue I largely agree with you. But there's way too much than can go wrong and too much risk to innocents on a plane for untrained people to carry there.

Well put, despite my outward cantankerousness, believe it or not, my mind is always open.

As with most of these decidedly undecided quandaries, it ultimately comes down to practicality vs ideology and we must arrive at some intermediate compromise if only to allow the wheels of the world to keep spinning.

I've seen the video, several times.

In my opinion, it seems as though he went out of his way to behave in a way that would attract law-enforcement attention, then followed a few cops around to make sure that he would get harassed.


I'm not against open-carry laws, nor am I generally against gun ownership -- but I am in complete agreement with law enforcement giving anyone who brings a high-powered high-round weapon to public spaces a great deal of attention and continued observation. There, I said it.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

Plus Should I be free to carry a lighter into a explosive chemical plant? Cause freedom over safety?

You should know not to wear synthetic clothes and roll around on the rug but, I fail to see how an ordinarily deadly weapon is any more deadly when flying (save the statistically unlikely points zaphod makes).

I don't believe the issue is about structural damage, flight control failure, or decompression of the cabin. I'm of the mindset that the problem lies with 100 or so people in very cramped quarters with very little room for error in shot placement.

An average person can't handle the adrenalin dump that occurs. They're likely to spray all over the place.

I do appreciate the concern but, if that were the only consideration, toll booths and grocery store lines would seem to be the place to start that argument.

A loophole in state law which versus federal law at airports .


I fully support the Second Amendment "oh ye uninformed person ".


But demonstrations like this do nothing to further the Second Amendment cause.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When it comes to air travel there is a greater chance of dying from deep vein thrombosis than dying of a gunshot wound and there is even less of a chance of a gunshot creating explosive decompression.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
I've seen the video, several times.

In my opinion, it seems as though he went out of his way to behave in a way that would attract law-enforcement attention, then followed a few cops around to make sure that he would get harassed.


I'm not against open-carry laws, nor am I generally against gun ownership -- but I am in complete agreement with law enforcement giving anyone who brings a high-powered high-round weapon to public spaces a great deal of attention and continued observation. There, I said it.

Well said it was.

originally posted by: Greathouse
A loophole in state law which versus federal law at airports .


I fully support the Second Amendment "oh ye uninformed person ".


But demonstrations like this do nothing to further the Second Amendment cause.

Exactly. To me this is completely akin to those yahoos that tried to walk into a chilis and a sonic (or whatever the restaurants were) looking like they were on their way to the western front. And then acted like rhymes with witches when they got booted out. They all think they're doing "the cause" a great service when all they're doing is being morons and making the rest of us look bad. Drives me up a wall.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I'm not against open-carry laws, nor am I generally against gun ownership --
but I am in complete agreement with law enforcement giving anyone who brings a high-powered high-round weapon to public spaces a great deal of attention and continued observation. There, I said it.

No need to get it off your chest-we agree.

It's only the Yosemite sams who think that gun ownership is a right and not a responsibility that would endorse this action.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: greencmp

No, but they can hit the electronics bay, or an oxygen generator, or a pilot, or a fuel tank....

Yes, and the moment they tried to do something like that they would be immediately put down.

From a safety standpoint when considering intentional sabotage, the presence of firearms outweighs the absence of them.

He meant a untrained person trying to kill the "bad guy" could hit them by accident.

Extreme and in my opinion dangerous views like this don't help the pro gun argument. They just give fuel to the anti gun movement.

Guns may be a tool but they are still a dangerous tool that needs respect.

I was not aware that the anti-gun "movement" needed more fuel.

a reply to: crazyewok

This is ATS and I qualified my use of disputed facts.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Zaphod58

When it comes to air travel there is a greater chance of dying from deep vein thrombosis than dying of a gunshot wound and there is even less of a chance of a gunshot creating explosive decompression.

Funny i seem to remember a experiment to see if Decompression happens explosively and if its the size of a bullet hole or window(single window) would not cause a break up of the aircraft. ALthough this could be negated..with the addition of bullet resistant materials in between the frame and skin of the cabin.

No way someone does this who is a responsible gun owner.

Looks like a fake actor for increased gun control to me.

High capacity assault weapon, check.

Can they be more cliché?

Hey probably WAS a cop.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Absolutely agree.

From appearances, he was trying to cause a ruckus. I'd be angrier at the cops/security if they didn't look askance at that idiocy.

Like the anti-second amendment folks need more ammunition.