TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I'll let L. Neil Smith state my preference:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

So you have no problem with your daughter getting on an airplane where most of the other passengers are secretly members of Al Qaeda (who were born here and are US citizens) and who are carrying H&K MP-5's, right?

Sure, most of the other passengers are armed to the teeth as well. And if the Al Qaeda folks tried any funny business, the other passengers, armed citizens for the most part, would make quick work of them.

So that would be OK with you, right?

How about if your daughter and granddaughter were aboard?

Do you think it wouldn't cross Al Qaeda's mind to run ops like that if anyone could carry any gun anywhere?

If so, why would you think that?

Hey Frankie...

If it ever got to the point of that being a possibility, or even a probability...

I do not believe there would be much of an airline industry anywhere in the world...

Thats is amplifying a situation to an extreme absurdity...

But...It certainly is something that needs to be included into that big pendulum swing of life...

And I know that is something we all do not want to see, and will do what we can to make sure it doesn't get that bad...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I don't consider license requirements as infringements as long as the license is shall issue and available to any sane, adult LAC.

I do, and the government reaps the benefits of licensing through the fees, so I am not approving of infringements that the government gets revenue from...

Remember, none of the BOR is absolute. All have limitations that are deemed to be "reasonable". Rights can conflict with each other and the courts have to draw lines. Think of parades, noise ordinances, etc.

That almost sounds like you believe the BOR (as you state) are a living, breathing supplements to the Constitution??? And that if the conditions are right, those BOR's can be bent a little bit here and there to accommodate government over-stepping their bounds...

I believe you have the direction of where the boundaries apply to backwards...The BOR's are there to limit and provide boundaries to the government, not the people (us)...Its just unfortunate that some people believe it to be restrictions and regulating the people instead of what they were meant to be applied to...Yes, they are instructions and guidelines to a certain degree, but they are more to keep the government in check, than to be used against the people (us)...

I would not consider suitcase nukes, if they exist, to be 2A type weapons. Banning the private possession of them is not an infringement IMO.

A nuke (as you say) is a completed device with many mechanisms and components that are regulated and controlled (by the government) outside of what the Second Amendment quantifies...So the right to keep and bear a "nuke" does not qualify anyway, it serves no purpose in an individuals need for personal protection or self-defense...

There is a difference between an "Originalist" reading of the BOR and a "literal" reading, IMO. I favor the Originalist philosophy myself.

I would really like to see the difference as you state...Lets keep it simple...An "Originalist" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and then a "literal" interpretation of the same...

A literal interpretation would mean something that an Originalist would agree to because of its original meaning or interpretation...To me there would be no difference there...

Liberty wrote: I have a problem with liberals giving speeches, however there are things we live with in the name of freedom.

That was uncalled for. Seriously. You owe him an apology.

The concerns brought up are all perfectly valid. Crime and Terrorism at 35,000 is not like crime on the ground; there's nowhere to run, and the results and mistakes can be deadly.

I WOULD be nervous if Al Qeda could carry their MP5's anywhere on a plane.
Just because federal rules about armed air travel didn't exist, it wouldn't stop the airlines from making their own rules. They might only allow CHLers, or they might only allow their own security on planes. Or the airlines might ban weapons in the plane completely themselves.

It's the airlines call, not the governments, and I think that's the point people are trying to make.

nitrogen wrote:It's the airlines call, not the governments...

Everything that airlines do is strictly regulated by the federal government. It is illegal to carry weapons on a commercial airliner, except for federal officers and qualified pilots.

If the federal government did not prohibit passengers bringing weapons on planes, the airlines would no doubt prohibit it in the current environment, as with cruise lines.

There was a time when it was neither illegal nor prohibited by airline policy. I've heard various accounts as to whether weapons were checked with the pilot or simply carried with no fuss.

- Jim

First of all, what is BOR?

Second, where do we get the idea that the Second Amendment covers resident Al-Qaeda members? Aren't these people committing treason by fighting with/for our enemies? If that isn't grounds for losing your RKBA, I don't know what is.

seamusTX wrote:

nitrogen wrote: If the federal government did not prohibit passengers bringing weapons on planes, the airlines would no doubt prohibit it in the current environment, as with cruise lines.

- Jim

Cruise ships are covered by maritiime law. Since most cruises involve foreign travel then that must be considered as well.

With respect to packing on airlines, the best we could hope for would be domestic travel only so cruise ships are not really a good comparison.

Anygun

Venus Pax wrote: First of all, what is BOR?

Shorthand for The Bill of Rights.

Venus Pax wrote: Second, where do we get the idea that the Second Amendment covers resident Al-Qaeda members? Aren't these people committing treason by fighting with/for our enemies? If that isn't grounds for losing your RKBA, I don't know what is.

The BOR applies to anyone located in the USA. Citizenship, etc. is not a requirement.

They won't have signs around their necks proclaiming their Al Qaeda affiliation. So they would have to be treated like any other person.

If we had a system where anyone could carry any gun anywhere at any time, and a bunch of these people bought tickets for an airline journey, and arrived with MP-5's slung over their shoulders, what would you propose we do about it?

How would they be distinguished from a bunch of good ol' boys out for a nice holiday with their MP-5's?

By what principle would you somehow keep the Al Qaeda people off of the plane, while letting the good ol' boys (and their MP-5's) on it?

And please don't say it's far-fetched. It only seems like that today because of the multiple prohibitions in place that prevent it. If anyone could buy any kind of gun freely, and carry it everywhere they wanted to freely, none of those prohibitions would exist.

Venus Pax wrote:First of all, what is BOR?

Second, where do we get the idea that the Second Amendment covers resident Al-Qaeda members? Aren't these people committing treason by fighting with/for our enemies? If that isn't grounds for losing your RKBA, I don't know what is.

BOR = Bill of Rights

Sorry, blame Frankie for the abbreviation...

I just kinda ran with it...Muh bad...I shouldn't have done that...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And please don't say it's far-fetched. It only seems like that today because of the multiple prohibitions in place that prevent it. If anyone could buy any kind of gun freely, and carry it everywhere they wanted to freely, none of those prohibitions would exist.

It certainly is far-fetched!

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

And all of the violations, infringements, regulations and rules pounded into us over the last 40 some odd years HAS created this environment that maybe its not a good idea to tote a nice looking MP5 slung across your shoulder in todays overly sensitive society...

Not that any of "us" would do so, because we tend to respect many more things than the average shlup who would do so just to make a statement or actually do some dastardly crime in this world!

I am actually really glad you bring these points up...

Next???

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
How would they be distinguished from a bunch of good ol' boys out for a nice holiday with their MP-5's?

By what principle would you somehow keep the Al Qaeda people off of the plane, while letting the good ol' boys (and their MP-5's) on it?

This idea may seem far fetched, especially to the executive and legislative branch.

The means to control AQ and their minions is called border security and profiling.

The root of lack of border control and failure to recognize who is trying to kill us is essentially political correctness. They may not have signs around their neck, but the last time I checked, the majority of terrorists were muslim males between the age of 17-50. A large percentage of criminals are illegals who are gang bangers.

Shut down the borders.

Send illegals home.

Know who the immigrants are.

Identify potential terrorists.

Send them home or kill them. Our prisons are for domestic criminals.

Pretty simple, actually.

Anygun

anygunanywhere wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:none of those fit my beliefs. You jump from "Only law abiding, non-felon, sane people should own firearms. "to "Come and take them, cold dead hands etc. "


There is a WHOLE lot of room between those two.

Txi, you are right, as usual.

Since once again the post is not up to your standards, your belief is.....What?


Anygun

My standards? I just can't answer it because none of the choices fit me.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
How would they be distinguished from a bunch of good ol' boys out for a nice holiday with their MP-5's?

By what principle would you somehow keep the Al Qaeda people off of the plane, while letting the good ol' boys (and their MP-5's) on it?

This idea may seem far fetched, especially to the executive and legislative branch.

The means to control AQ and their minions is called border security and profiling.

The root of lack of border control and failure to recognize who is trying to kill us is essentially political correctness. They may not have signs around their neck, but the last time I checked, the majority of terrorists were muslim males between the age of 17-50. A large percentage of criminals are illegals who are gang bangers.

Shut down the borders.

Send illegals home.

Know who the immigrants are.

Identify potential terrorists.

Send them home or kill them. Our prisons are for domestic criminals.

Pretty simple, actually.

Anygun

You didn't exactly address my question.

I asked by what principle would you prevent AQ people from boarding an airliner en masse with MP-5's, if at the same time you freely allow Bubba and his good ol' boys to freely purchase MP-5's and carry them wherever they go, with no license or any other documentation required?

Instead of citing a principle, you listed a number of policies and/or tactics you would recommend. You seem to also assume that they would be 100% effective, which I find astonishing.

So a group of AQ's buy MP-5's (No background checks required, right?), and plane tickets and show up at the gate. The MP-5's are slung over their shoulders. (No LTC required, right?) What would you propose we do? Especially when Bubba and his pals are also at the gate and similarly outfitted.

Would you start filtering people by how they look? By what religion they subscribe to, (if you could even determine what that is)? By their accent if any? By the way they style their hair and/or beards? By the color of their skin? By the way they dress?

How would you keep the AQ people and their MP-5's off the plane?

Or would you simply put your faith in the armed citizenry to shoot it out with them when necessary?

Remember, it only seems far-fetched today, because of all the legal obstacles in place. Remove them all, and it could be easily accomplished.

And if it was that easy, do you think for a minute that AQ or even the occassional lone lunatic wouldn't do it?

This talk of taking weapons onto planes is a red herring.

Government inspectors testing the TSA have smuggled weapons into secure areas many time, maybe hundreds. People have accidentally brought weapons onto planes and got caught on a later leg of the trip.

If someone had the intent of doing it, they could get a job in food service or something like that and smuggle anything onto a plane. It happens now with drugs.

The reason that no halfway sane person has tried to hijack a plane in the U.S. recently is that they know the passengers would pile on them (like Richard Reid) or the pilot would ditch the plane before losing control of it.

The fundamental question here is whether you infringe the rights of law-abiding people to prevent criminals and lunatics from doing damage.

It doesn't work. It can't work in any society less authoritarian than the Soviet Union.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Liberty wrote: I have a problem with liberals giving speeches, however there are things we live with in the name of freedom.

1) Don't you believe in free speech? Or do you just want to hear from those with whom you agree?

2) Why not simply address the concerns I raised instead of attacking my right to raise them?

3) Do you think that if anyone could carry any gun any where and at any time, that Al Qaeda wouldn't attempt ops like that, or worse? If so, why not?

And that's just one of many disasterous scenarios I can come up with that could be expected to occur from time to time if we had a completely "free" system.

If you are comfortable living with the consequences of such a system, I would be curious to know why.

And who knows, maybe I have a problem with people making broad, feel good, catagorical statements without thinking through some of the consequences.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I was trying to say in general that the the price of free speech is that others whom we disagree with also have that same right. This is the price of freedom.

Likewise on the the RKBA I believe that sometimes there is a price to be paid for certain freedoms. Perhaps that scenerio you drew out would be one of them.

Again I apoligise for posting something that you understood to be an attack. I never considered you a liberal, but I would never want to restrict someones right to speak because of their leftness or rightness.. and that was really what I failed to make clear to you.

The Answer to # 1 is I believe absolutely in the right to free speech. I sometimes don't enjoy listening to irrational extremist.

The answer to #2 is that I didn't intend anythiung I posted as an attack on anyone. I though I addressed the concerns by claiming my belief that sometimes there is a price to pay for freedom.

The answer to #3 is; Yes I believe anyone should be able to carry anywhere.