DD's plea to you: be Americans and UNITE
N9NWO
Douglas Daniels wrote:
> This, by far, is the blackest day in the history of this country. Not only
> has our nation been attacked -- repeatedly -- in the course of hours, but we
> can not even seem to unite as common people, as Americans under our own flag,
> long enough to combat this evil that has desecrated our country. Looking in
> this newsgroup has made me weep for the first time ever, seeing so many people
> still filled with political bias and hatred for other Americans simply because
> of party lines or because they happen to be in the military and despise those
> who are not.
> This country belongs to ALL Americans. Not just Republicans who hate
> Liberals, not just Liberals who despise conservatives -- ALL. We SHOULD all be
> together today, but instead all I see are pleas of unity responded to with
> peals of hatred and anger.
> "Clinton! Clinton did it!"
> "Bush! Bush did it!"
> No. Neither of them did it. This country was attacked today in a hideous
> warlike fashion, and we need to come together as one. If there are people that
> still harbor hatred for others because of their political biases and party
> lines, regardless of what side they're on, it's time for you to either shut up
> or join the rest of the country in unity.
> Argue tomorrow. Fight today.
> Please, I beg of you...N9NWO, Kulkis, etc., PLEASE...the evils that have
> attacked our nation WANT you to be hateful against your country. PLEASE don't
> give in to them. Please don't prove to them what they already think.
> We are one nation, under God, indivisible. ALL Americans were attacked
> today. ALL. Not only military members, not just marines, not just police, not
> just civilians, not just men, not just women, not just children, not just you,
> not just me...ALL.
> And we need ALL Americans to ACT like Americans.
> For God's love, PLEASE.
>
> DD
Sorry but you are a scared little coward.
Now you want us conservatives to comfort
you.
For the last 25 years liberals have expected
the coservatives to give and give even more.
The liberals are takers, they whine about not
being given enough. They want us conservatives
to clean up the messes they create.
Sorry, but it is nto you who has served over the
last 25 years in the military or law enforcement
communities. It is those you have dispised because
they valued tradition and community. Now you
want us to let you share in our sense of traditions
and community. Sorry but you have not earned
that right.
Ever notice that most of us in the military or
in public service (law enforcement and fire
fighting) always stand apart from the likes of
you? It is because we are a band of brothers
who have paid the price that you have looked
down on.
Got My Mind Right, Boss..
N9NW0, you truly have a self-image problem. You need
to seek help about your inferiority complex.
That, and illusions of grandeur. Thinking YOU somehow
represent the military, and all. And thinking that
anyone gives a ripe shit what YOU think about anything..
N9NWO
StuWelwood wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, but it is not you who has served over the
> >last 25 years in the military or law enforcement
> >communities. It is those you have dispised because
> >they valued tradition and community. Now you
> >want us to let you share in our sense of traditions
> >and community. Sorry but you have not earned
> >that right.
> >
> >Ever notice that most of us in the military or
> >in public service (law enforcement and fire
> >fighting) always stand apart from the likes of
> >you? It is because we are a band of brothers
> >who have paid the price that you have looked
> >down on.
>
: It is the fine men and women of the military and civilian
:services that create the shield behind which the rest of us
:are protected. Without them, freedoms such as the right to
:free speech and the bearing of arms would no longer exist.
>
> I, for one, thank you heartily for service and devotion.
>
> Stuart Welwood
>
: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would
:be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai
:Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
As many in law enforcement are fond of saying:
"there is a thin blue line that seperates civilization
from anarchy".
That thin line is not only the police but those who
serve in the military. Without them, we would not
have a society. Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
community that America has turned away from. Now
many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
so weak, so hopeless.
Scout
"N9NWO" <21...@gte.net> wrote in message news:3BA1299A...@gte.net...
> That thin line is not only the police but those who
> serve in the military. Without them, we would not
> have a society. Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
> and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
> community that America has turned away from. Now
> many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
> our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
> so weak, so hopeless.
Bullshit, elitist crap.....
Forget it, the military is NOT superior.
N9NWO
> > That thin line is not only the police but those who
> > serve in the military. Without them, we would not
> > have a society. Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
> > and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
> > community that America has turned away from. Now
> > many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
> > our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
> > so weak, so hopeless.
>
> Bullshit, elitist crap.....
>
> Forget it, the military is NOT superior.
So you see your service as no better than
what any anti military liberal has done?
Do you see yourself as not as valuable either?
That is what liberals say about those who serve,
that they were not able to get a "real job", that
they are expendable and are there to die for those
liberals with Ph.D's who are "valuable".
Look, there are many in law enforcement and in the
military who themselves as the last force that is
keeping the US going. The "Thin Blue Line" as many
cops like to say.
Matthew DeBell
>That thin line is not only the police but those who
>serve in the military. Without them, we would not
>have a society.
We also would not have a society (or at least not society as we know it)
without farmers, or legislators, or judges, or truck drivers, or garbage
collectors. The police and military are not particularly distinctive in
being necessary parts of our society. That the work is necessary does not
make the people who do it better than anybody else.
>Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
>and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
>community that America has turned away from. Now
>many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
>our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
>so weak, so hopeless.
What?
--
Matthew DeBell
Strabo
In most parts of the world today, and throughout history,
police are not the venerated saviors of civilization.
They are the everyday brute force of the King. The
military is held in reserve until the rebellion is
serious and then unleashed.
>
> That thin line is not only the police but those who
> serve in the military. Without them, we would not
> have a society. Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
> and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
> community that America has turned away from. Now
> many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
> our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
> so weak, so hopeless.
Yeah, and that is who the thin blue line plays to, the
alone, the weak and the helpless. There's the basis of
democratic socialism in one neat package.
While there is a need for police, they too easily cross
the line of necessity into creating job security.
Sure we would have societies (separate and equal perhaps)
without police. Government agents are not the keepers of
culture except in communist states.
Now you elevate firefighters to lofty Mt. Aetna. Because
they wear a "uniform"? Most are volunteers in America and
not government employees. What artificial class of the
proletariat will be next?
I would have thought that the culture of the people keeps
alive the customs and traditions of the people.
Face it. You have some interesting ideas with
occasional insights, but you are obsessed with,
and in love with, rigid government structure and power.
Strabo
The best thing that could happen to preserve American
society is for it to lose its dependency on government
protection.
Rick Bowen
wrote:
Tuesday was a start. Fedgov didn't protect shit.
There not there yet, though. They are calling for "air marshals"
instead of calling for doing it themselves.
Rick Bowen
Cl (Chlorine)
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
"Molon Labe"
Member of PETA
(People Eating Tasty Animals)
B.A.S.T.A.R.D.
(Bad American Standing
Tall Among Radically
Dependant Sheeple)
N9NWO
Your little handguns would not have stopped
this attack. I told you folks that I do not want
to fight a war on our soil. Now you have had
a taste. The next attack will take out a city like
Boston or Silicon Valley. This attack is going
to push us into a full blown recession. The next
attack will destroy our economy.
The goal of the ancient nations (countries with a
heritage of over 2500 years like Iran, Iraq or
Syria or over 5000 years like China) is to destroy
our Bill of Rights, to destroy our Constitution, to
split us into 3 to 5 nations that are at civil war
with each other. Do you really want that?
The best way to end the dependence of Federal
Government "protection" is to mandate that every
male serve if fit. By service, that means trained.
And equipped like we used to wear you serve in
the Guard and take your weapons home!
Yes they can activate you. But if they do, watch
for every family to raise holy hell if it is done in
vain like Clinton used the military. And it would
change a lot of attitudes if every soldier, every
National Guardsman had his weapons at home.
N9NWO
Because the police are a seperate class of individuals,
a warrior elite. Instead of police work being something
everyone does at a certain time of your life.
: > That thin line is not only the police but those who
: > serve in the military. Without them, we would not
: > have a society. Those in uniform (police, fire fighters
: > and military) keep alive the traditions and sense of
: > community that America has turned away from. Now
: > many are looking to those who serve, and have conserved
: > our traditions and way of life, because they are so alone,
: > so weak, so hopeless.
:
: Yeah, and that is who the thin blue line plays to, the
: alone, the weak and the helpless. There's the basis of
: democratic socialism in one neat package.
:
: While there is a need for police, they too easily cross
: the line of necessity into creating job security.
:
: Sure we would have societies (separate and equal perhaps)
: without police. Government agents are not the keepers of
: culture except in communist states.
:
: Now you elevate firefighters to lofty Mt. Aetna. Because
: they wear a "uniform"? Most are volunteers in America and
: not government employees. What artificial class of the
: proletariat will be next?
:
: I would have thought that the culture of the people keeps
: alive the customs and traditions of the people.
:
: Face it. You have some interesting ideas with
: occasional insights, but you are obsessed with,
: and in love with, rigid government structure and power.
No, I am in love with people like you and me being the
government, not some elite class. Would it hurt if
everyone served at some time in their lives as a police
officer or fire fighter? Or in the military? And should
not those who serve be issued their weapons for life?
And does not make sense that we should expect everyone,
at some time in their lives, to run for political office?
Should not government be run by us?
But instead you are too willing to allow specialization
and elitism to run the show. The people often get the
government they deserve.
T0Leo
>
>Forget it, the military is NOT superior.
>
And what's your claim to fame?
Aaron R. Kulkis
Yes...if such were the case, I would trust the Federal
Government a LOT more.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. (Updated 20 July 2001)
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com u...@ftc.gov
spa...@spamcop.net
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
james
> those with in it borders, didnt matter if i agreed with or even liked
> them. i knew that there might come a day when i might have to loose my
> life so somebody else could have the freedom not enjoyed in other
> countries and i accepted that. wasnt real happy with knowing that
> hippies and elitist and others of that genre enjoy that freedom yet
> offer nothing in repayment.i dont agree with the government and i feel
> that it is an alternative to otherwise would be ambulance chasers or tv
> evanglist. and i really wish i could have brought my weapon home
> although M1 Abrahms dont get too good a fuel milage parking spots are
> easily found. however it is sterotypical of those who have never been in
> the military to badmouth those of us who have and to be honest if i had
> college money given to me i might not have stayed 10 yrs in service. i
> salute those who are willing to give their lives to save others whether
> there a profession or volunteer at least they have they balls to do it.
jim
james
David L. Moffitt
DISSOCIATED PRESS -- Sarah Brady, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI),
had some words of consolation for America following the tragic terrorist
attacks of September 11: It could have been worse. Lots worse.
"America got off easy, " Brady explained. "Just imagine the horrendous
carnage if even one passenger on one of those planes had been carrying a
handgun!" There was a brief pause in the press conference as four reporters
had to be revived with smelling salts. Once everyone was composed again,
Brady continued. "Yes, thank God that our legislators have been tirelessly
working to make sure that handguns stay out of the hands of everyone who
will obey the law!
Even one handgun aboard one of those planes could have forced it's owner to
shoot all the innocent passengers, then blast a hole in the side of the
aircraft, though which the owner and the poor misguided terrorists would
have been sucked like spaghetti. Once cabin pressure had stabilized, the gun
would undoubtedly have flown the plane into a much more serious
target: HCI Headquarters. And, without HCI, the disarmament of ordinary,
stupid Americans might take years longer to accomplish!"
"Ms. Brady," asked the reporter from CNN, "we keep hearing about frangible
rounds -- ammunition that won't penetrate a bulkhead or a fuselage. Wouldn't
that prevent at least the owner and the poor misguided terrorists from the
spaghetti thing?"
"Not at all. Personally, I doubt there _is_ such ammunition. After all,
bullets are designed for one thing only: to destroy. So no one would ever
_limit_ their destructive power. But, for the sake of argument, assume there
really is such a thing. Then there's no doubt that anyone stupid enough to
own a handgun would also be too stupid to use the appropriate ammunition.
QED, as we educated, liberal, and therefore superior people say."
Next came a question from ABC. "Isn't there at least a chance that a
passenger with a pistol might actually hit a terrorist? Or maybe get them to
surrender before damage is done?"
"You don't understand the laws of metaphysics," Brady explained."Bullets
are naturally attracted toward innocent victims. Only when the shooter is
someone in whom continued expression of the troglodyte gene has caused
mental defectiveness, devolving into animal cunning, can actual _aiming_ and
_accuracy_ occur. Why else do you think we entrust firearms only to
police and the military? Believe me ... put a pistol in the hands of anyone
with more than a high school diploma and a 'C' average, and you have almost
certain disaster. That's why it is, ipso facto, stupid to carry a handgun."
The last question came from CBS. "Ms. Brady, do you have any words of
condolence for the families of the victims at the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon, and Flight 39 in Pennsylvania?"
"Yes, and I'm happy for the opportunity to say this, for it should bring
much comfort during these most difficult times. As you think of your loved
ones lying crushed and broken in the debris, suffocating in thick dust and
smoke, and waiting until the flames reach them to end it all ... well, I
just want you to know how horrible it _could_ have been. Flesh wounds!
Sudden death without warning! Perhaps worst of all, _gun cooties_! "Oh ...
or that spaghetti thing."
[This story may be freely reproduced in its entirety and distributed
without restriction, compliments of the Dissociated Press.]
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS<TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn
proud of it!
Wherever hurt is done, you shall give LIFE FOR LIFE, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound
for wound.
-Exodus, 21:23,24,25
John Tibbs
--
INFO YOU CAN USE:
For NRA membership inquiries dial toll-free
1-877-672-2000 or for hearing impaired
1-877-672-8331
Protect your freedom! Join Now!
Those who would give up their freedom for tempory
security deserve neither!
Ben Franklin
Itold...@rightwing.com
<jti...@tcainternet.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
Why?
Itold...@rightwing.com
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote like a right wing nut;
It don't sound any better coming from out your asshole, either
Applesauce lady.
John Tibbs
<Itold...@rightwing.com> wrote in message
news:3ba37505....@news.enetis.net...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:11:41 -0500, "John Tibbs"
> <jti...@tcainternet.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
>
> Why?
It is no longer any doubt that the radical islamic terrorists have a low
regard for their own lives, so to bring them (only) to justice will not
deter others. What must be done in this case (and this is terrible I admit)
is to destroy what they love. Collateral damage is a part of all wars so
innocent people will be hurt regardless. Let's make it known to the
terrorists that when our loved ones are hurt theirs will be also on a bigger
scale than they can tolerate. God forgive me for suggesting this but it is
surely the lesser of two horrendous evils.
Let's wipe out completely every known or suspected supporter, abettor,
sanction giver, protector, or sympathizer. It is the only way. Maybe it
will anger some other nations or groups but being nice to nasty people only
gets more nice people hurt. It is a fact of life that must be considered
and acted upon. It is the time! God be with us!
>
>
>
>
nos...@please.thankyou
> <Itold...@rightwing.com> wrote in message
> news:3ba37505....@news.enetis.net...
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:11:41 -0500, "John Tibbs"
> > <jti...@tcainternet.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
> >
> > Why?
> --
> INFO YOU CAN USE:
> For NRA membership inquiries dial toll-free
> 1-877-672-2000 or for hearing impaired
> 1-877-672-8331
> Protect your freedom! Join Now!
> Those who would give up their freedom for tempory
> security deserve neither!
> Ben Franklin
>
> It is no longer any doubt that the radical islamic terrorists have a
> low regard for their own lives,
This shows how ignorant you are. They believe they will go straight to
heaven, that they are martyrs. That's not a low regard for their own
lives.
> so to bring them (only) to justice will not deter others. What must
> be done in this case (and this is terrible I admit) is to destroy
> what they love.
That's what started all this in the first place. If you had a cousin
that worked in the pharmaceutical plant that Clinton bomed, you'd be
saying the same stuff you're saying now, only about us rather than
them. If you're not aware of history, go look it up before making
asinine statements like this.
> Collateral damage is a part of all wars so innocent people will be
> hurt regardless. Let's make it known to the terrorists that when
> our loved ones are hurt theirs will be also on a bigger scale than
> they can tolerate.
"Collateral damage" is a term that indicates something which wasn't
intended to tbe destroyed. That's not what you're talking about,
you're talking about making it deliberate.
> God forgive me for suggesting this
He might, I won't until you apologize for suggesting it.
> but it is surely the lesser of two horrendous evils.
Quite the contrary. It's adopting the viewpoint you say you want to
eradicate. It's to become what you want to destroy.
> Let's wipe out completely every known or suspected supporter,
> abettor, sanction giver, protector, or sympathizer. It is the only
> way. Maybe it will anger some other nations or groups but being
> nice to nasty people only gets more nice people hurt. It is a fact
> of life that must be considered and acted upon. It is the time!
> God be with us!
God help us if people like you have any say in it.
nos...@please.thankyou
> <Itold...@rightwing.com> wrote in message
> news:3ba37505....@news.enetis.net...
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:11:41 -0500, "John Tibbs"
> > <jti...@tcainternet.com> wrote like a right wing nut;
[...]
> Let's wipe out completely every known or suspected supporter,
> abettor, sanction giver, protector, or sympathizer.
Let's think about this. Who's going to define "supporter", "abettor",
"sanction giver", "protector" and "sympathizer"? Who's going to decide
what constitutes "known" and "suspected"?
Will I be a suspected sympathizer because I disagree with you? Why or
why not? What are the rules you're proposing?
Sheesh, think before you post shit like this on the Internet will you?
Jim Nicholson
>
> This shows how ignorant you are. They believe they will go straight to
> heaven,
It must come as quite a shock to them to wake up in Hades.
--
Jim Nicholson -- http://www.tsra.com/
H. McDaniel
I bet some states will be fielding anti-aircraft defenses of their own near
major cities. Having said that now is the time to help the government
iradicate the enemeis of freedom from the face of the earth.
-McDaniel
John Tibbs
<nos...@please.thankyou> wrote in message
news:m3g09o1...@please.thankyou...
I'll bet the 'history' I learned in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s is a
heluve more accurate than your more 'politically correct' history.
>
> > Collateral damage is a part of all wars so innocent people will be
> > hurt regardless. Let's make it known to the terrorists that when
> > our loved ones are hurt theirs will be also on a bigger scale than
> > they can tolerate.
>
> "Collateral damage" is a term that indicates something which wasn't
> intended to tbe destroyed. That's not what you're talking about,
> you're talking about making it deliberate.
Nope, I'm saying innocent lives are lost in wars anyway.
>
> > God forgive me for suggesting this
>
> He might, I won't until you apologize for suggesting it.
When all terrorists in the world apologize and surrender to be executed, I
will apologize, deal?
>
> > but it is surely the lesser of two horrendous evils.
>
> Quite the contrary. It's adopting the viewpoint you say you want to
> eradicate. It's to become what you want to destroy.
Yes, I want to destroy terrorism.
>
> > Let's wipe out completely every known or suspected supporter,
> > abettor, sanction giver, protector, or sympathizer. It is the only
> > way. Maybe it will anger some other nations or groups but being
> > nice to nasty people only gets more nice people hurt. It is a fact
> > of life that must be considered and acted upon. It is the time!
> > God be with us!
>
> God help us if people like you have any say in it.
How much say did YOU have last Tuesday, moron.
>
John Tibbs
<nos...@please.thankyou> wrote in message
news:m3bskc1...@please.thankyou...
Very loose rules, IOW if you're a likely suspect, you're likely gone! We'll
let God decide where you go.
>
> Sheesh, think before you post shit like this on the Internet will you?
I DID, that's why I posted this!
>
nos...@please.thankyou
> <nos...@please.thankyou> wrote in message
> news:m3g09o1...@please.thankyou...
> > "John Tibbs" <jti...@tcainternet.com> writes:
> > > so to bring them (only) to justice will not deter others. What
> > > must be done in this case (and this is terrible I admit) is to
> > > destroy what they love.
> >
> > That's what started all this in the first place. If you had a cousin
> > that worked in the pharmaceutical plant that Clinton bomed, you'd be
> > saying the same stuff you're saying now, only about us rather than
> > them. If you're not aware of history, go look it up before making
> > asinine statements like this.
>
> I'll bet the 'history' I learned in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s,
> 80s is a heluve more accurate than your more 'politically correct'
> history.
1. What's that got to do with what I said? We were discussing the
history of the recent events, I wasn't trying to find out how long
it took you to get out of high school.
2. What's politically correct about it? You're presenting yourself
more and more as someone who can't deal with disagreement, and
therefore not someone who should be making these kinds of
decisions.
Clinton did bomb a pharmaceutical plant, killing innocent
people. Terrorists have referred to this as something they intended
to avenge.
> > > Collateral damage is a part of all wars so innocent people will be
> > > hurt regardless. Let's make it known to the terrorists that when
> > > our loved ones are hurt theirs will be also on a bigger scale than
> > > they can tolerate.
> >
> > "Collateral damage" is a term that indicates something which wasn't
> > intended to tbe destroyed. That's not what you're talking about,
> > you're talking about making it deliberate.
>
> Nope, I'm saying innocent lives are lost in wars anyway.
What you said was "Let's make it known to the terrorists that when our
loved ones are hurt theirs will be also on a bigger scale than they
can tolerate". That's a statment of policy.
> > Quite the contrary. It's adopting the viewpoint you say you want
> > to eradicate. It's to become what you want to destroy.
>
> Yes, I want to destroy terrorism.
What you're proposing would make you a terrorist.
> > > Let's wipe out completely every known or suspected supporter,
> > > abettor, sanction giver, protector, or sympathizer. It is the
> > > only way. Maybe it will anger some other nations or groups but
> > > being nice to nasty people only gets more nice people hurt. It
> > > is a fact of life that must be considered and acted upon. It is
> > > the time! God be with us!
> >
> > God help us if people like you have any say in it.
>
> How much say did YOU have last Tuesday, moron.
Offering a non sequitor like this makes a poor introduction to you
calling someone else a moron.
novadave
http://www.mynra.com/
I agree. This is the time to put your foot down and use your 2nd
ammendment rights to tell those terrorist bastards what freedom means.
That freedom is backed by might, and that we are a might people.
Another great organization is Gun Owners of America.
http://www.gunowners.org/
Novadave
novadave
allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
still hope . . .
Novadave
novadave
on their way. I say nothing short of a total melt down for bin Laden
and anyone who supports him.
M. L. Davis
nos...@please.thankyou wrote in message ...
I suppose that you believed that yarn about the "Baby Milk Factory" in Iraq
too. Bet you believed Iraqi factory workers actually wore t-shirts with
"Baby Milk Factory" printed on them in english to work every day.
-*MORT*-
Joel Jacobs
> still hope . . .
Talk about having heads up backsides. Idiotic talk like this just gives
added fuel to the antis: "See, those gun nuts want to go around killing
everyone." Duh......
Joel Jacobs
M. L. Davis
novadave wrote in message ...
She is dying of cancer. Not fast enough though.
-*MORT*-
nos...@please.thankyou
nos...@please.thankyou
You know, I'm really wondering if you meant this the way it
sounds. Saddam pulls one of his predictable stunts, which nobody would
believe. Therefore, Clinton didn't do something to someone else.
No, I don't believe that Iraqi factory workers go to work like that
every day. It doesn't follow from that that Clinton didn't do
something that US has admitted to doing.
M. L. Davis
-*MORT*-
H. McDaniel
> They placed a bounty on Socialists/Liberal Democrats? COOL!
I suggest you focus on the people actually murdering americans by the bushel
full first.
-McDaniel
M. Simon
>She is dying of cancer. Not fast enough though.
>
>-*MORT*-
Anti-gun popularity is quickly fading.
The ultimate stupidity of it is hitting home.
The question now is who do you trust with a gun? Your neighbors or
only the madmen.
M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port
nos...@please.thankyou
Google has pages of references to it. The URL I offered gives dates
and places, it shouldn't be hard to find. It shouldn't be
necessary either, I can recall all this happening. I remember Clinton
admitting it was a pharmaceutical plant.
Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't go after these guys. I want
whoever is responsible for this hunted down and killed. I do not want
a general bloodbath. I think we should be honest enough to realize
that this action didn't just pop out of nowhere, that what we do has
consequences, so we should be careful about how we do this.
I was reponding to the viewpoint that we should kill women and
children, because they killed women and children.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us"
nos...@please.thankyou
nos...@please.thankyou
Sigh, that should be Snipe hunter.
novadave
Amen to that. Is there anything we can do to help. Or should we wait
until after the funeral so we can stand in line to piss on her grave?
)
shouted:
Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
that.
Ken [NY]
--
Chairperson,
Department of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
===============================================================
"I fear all I have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him
with a terrible resolve."
--Admiral Yamamoto after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
===============================================================
Les Français sont fromage mangeant des singes de reddition.
hamilton
gun...@lightspeed.net wrote:
> Ah..given your Idiotic synopsis Joel..it pretty much proves the point
> that Anti-gun nuts want everyone to be able to be killed at will, by
> anyone with a plastic knife and a box cutter.
>
> Gunner
>
no one needed a gun to stop the hijacking -- they needed the knowledge of
what the hijackers were going to do ---
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>Humor HM..humor. something greatly needed at the moment. I did note
>you snipped off the <g>s
>"There are a number of mechanical devices which increase
>sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these
>is the Mercedes-Benz 500SL convertible."
What is the best thing to give a young woman to reduce her sex
drive? Wedding cake.
--
Robert Sturgeon
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Proud member of the vast right wing
conspiracy and the evil gun culture.
Angelo D. Perez Jr.
"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
news:hamilton-160...@host-209-214-117-75.bna.bellsouth.net...
amount of violence needed in order
to retake the aircraft, also would have kept casualties to a minimum.
Angelo D. Perez Jr.
"Ken [NY )" <Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next> wrote in message
news:3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net...
> On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
> shouted:
>
> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
> >still hope . . .
> >
> >Novadave
>
> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
> that.
Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
Homer
hamilton wrote in message ...
So, the passengers should have been psychic, not armed?
>
Dese...@mojave.net
>
>"Ken [NY )" <Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next> wrote in message
Anit-gunners are part of the liberal/socialist establishment: they have NO
idea about what logical/rational thinking is all about...
LIBERAL LAW #1:
If you tell a lie often enough
eventually it will be perceived
as the truth...
hamilton
<fub...@mail.com> wrote:
if the 'passengers' had been armed, so too would the hijackers who were
after all 'passengers' -- get a grip
seb...@thegrid.net
Better odds than what they (the non-terrorists) had. I'd take 50/50
over 100/0 any day.
Sue
hamilton
the other passengers had all the 'arms' they needed to take out 4 guys
with box cutters -- what they didn't have was the knowledge that this
would be the best move --
Steve Hix
> > >no one needed a gun to stop the hijacking -- they needed the knowledge of
> > >what the hijackers were going to do ---
> >
> > So, the passengers should have been psychic, not armed?
>
> if the 'passengers' had been armed, so too would the hijackers who were
> after all 'passengers' -- get a grip
Well, *that* makes all the difference in the world.
The hijackers could have taken a couple of passengers with them...instead
of all of them.
Jos.Carman
"hamilton" <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
news:hamilton-160...@host-209-214-117-75.bna.bellsouth.net...
Carman wrote:
And the willingness to die, if necessary, to prevent it from happening.
I think it would have been better, all around, if some armed passengers
had simply shot the hijackers down before they succeeded in taking the
planes.
MORE FREEDOM, is the answer. MORE FREEDOM! Not less.
>
M. Simon
> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>that.
> Ken [NY]
Balance of power, 20 armed citizens. Plus armed air crew against 3 -5
terrorists.
When the odds of succeding get low enough - probanly below 10%. They
will look for new unarmed targets. Like schools.
Onethumb
> the other passengers had all the 'arms' they needed to take out 4 guys
> with box cutters -- what they didn't have was the knowledge that this
> would be the best move --
Or the will until the one flight where they knew all was already lost
anyway.
--
Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas
Iron Butt Association Member #3000
Right Rev. Royal Bellhop CM #0001
DoD #2021; onethumb at swbell dot net
"Paranoia is a disease unto itself. And, may I add,
the person standing next to you may not be who they
appear to be. So take precautions." - Primus
M. L. Davis
armed. Armed does not mean full auto. Armed means semi automatic handgun.
And it means CCW permit is checked before you board.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
passengers who knew what the hijackers planned. They attacked and died
anyway.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
>shouted:
>
>>Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
>>allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
>>you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
>>If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
>>still hope . . .
>>
>>Novadave
>
> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>that.
> Ken [NY]
Arming the passengers so they could oppose the hijackers. Not arming the
hijackers. A couple of passengers with CCW permit, who carried their
handguns on the plane, and there'd likely still be a WTC, a Pentagon with no
hole in it, and 5000 people would still be alive.
-*MORT*-
Jerry Hooten
Let's see, go down fighting, or cowering in the corner wimpering to mama
on the cell phone. Which would you chose?
Jerry
novadave
It works the same way relaxing the concealed carry laws does. When
private citizens carry criminals don't know who is armed and who
isn't. Criminals are not stupid. They go after targets who can't (or
won't) fight back. In every state that has these CCW laws crime
drops. To get these permits requires FBI background checks and being
finger printed. The people who get these permits obey the law and
don't just start shooting randomly (those who do that are usually
crazy and ALWAYS do it in areas that have been created by law as a gun
free zone (schools post offices federal buildings, restaurants,
churches, etc).
For some reason the gun-grabbing law makers never see this
relationship. They are more concerned with telling us how to live our
lives and forcing us to become victims of their tyranny. Quite
frankly I would like Schummer or HilLIARy to go one day with out their
armed guards. It's hypocrisy of any tyrant and a blight on our
freedom.
If you think relying on 911 will save you then - well - have a nice
funeral. Police are there to react to crimes already committed.
Unless of course you live in those states that have taken away your
rights to self protection (like NY) and then tax the hell out of you
to pay for a "cop on every corner" (like NYC). Living in a police
state is not what was intended by the authors of the constitution.
I grew up in the west where every one is armed to the teeth and we
learned to solve our problems politely. We also learned the safe
handling of fire arms early and matured at a younger age as a result.
Freud said, "Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional
maturity." If you think about how American pop culture is then you
will realize he was right.
Novadave
Joel Jacobs
> > >>
> > >> >> If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
> > >> >> still hope . . .
> > >> >
> > >> >Talk about having heads up backsides. Idiotic talk like this just
gives
> > >> >added fuel to the antis: "See, those gun nuts want to go around
killing
> > >> >everyone." Duh......
> > >> >
> > >> >Joel Jacobs
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Ah..given your Idiotic synopsis Joel..it pretty much proves the point
> > >> that Anti-gun nuts want everyone to be able to be killed at will, by
> > >> anyone with a plastic knife and a box cutter.
The subject was killing Brady, not about the terrorists. Duh, no wonder we
have problems on this group, many of the people can't read, and if they can,
they can't process information.
Joel
Joel Jacobs
> > >> that Anti-gun nuts want everyone to be able to be killed at will, by
> > >> anyone with a plastic knife and a box cutter.
And this gives rise to another question: IF the terrorists were armed ONLY
with knives and box cutters, whey did the passengers simply not overwhelm
them and disarm them? They certainly had the advantage of numbers. Sure,
someone might well have died and others might well have been cut. But,
remove a seat cushion, put it in front of you and get them in mass - do it
by sheer masses...... weapons were not needed in this case, just
determination and a will to live.
And, lest some one arrived late to this conversation, the original topic was
about killing Sarah Brady and not about the terrorists. And I still say
that was a tasteless remake that provides the antis with fuel that we
gunnies are nothing but a bunch of nuts.
Joel Jacobs
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>And this gives rise to another question: IF the terrorists were armed ONLY
>with knives and box cutters, whey did the passengers simply not overwhelm
>them and disarm them?
Because they've had idiots telling them not to resist.
I think ending that is more important than allowing them to have guns.
Once we get rid of the mindset that teaches that people should not fight
back, we'll have no trouble with guns.
--
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal
violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance,
does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities
to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally
deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In
truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means
to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous,
becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing
its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized,
random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and
women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
M. L. Davis
Jerry Hooten wrote in message <3BA52FED...@ev1.net>...
>"M. L. Davis" wrote:
>> Box cutterrs and a bomb". They threatened the passengers with a "bomb".
The
>> passengers who knew what the hijackers planned. They attacked and died
>> anyway.
>>
>> -*MORT*-
>
>Let's see, go down fighting, or cowering in the corner wimpering to mama
>on the cell phone. Which would you chose?
>
>Jerry
I'll take a .38 loaded with wad cutters over nothing. I'd go down fighting.
There's things on a plane that can be used. Break anything plastic or glass
that can form a sharp edge. Look for heavy things that can be used as a
club. Use pi;;ows as shields against knives. Yeah, I'd go down fighting.
Probably fighting the other passengers on the first two planes who were
convinced that fighting the hijackers would make them set off that "bomb".
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Joel Jacobs wrote in message ...
said they wanted to shoot her, just that the wrong Brady caught that bullet.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Joel Jacobs wrote in message ...
point
>> > >> that Anti-gun nuts want everyone to be able to be killed at will, by
>> > >> anyone with a plastic knife and a box cutter.
>
>And this gives rise to another question: IF the terrorists were armed ONLY
>with knives and box cutters, whey did the passengers simply not overwhelm
>them and disarm them?
They were told to be goood or the terrorists would detonate a bomb on the
plane.
They certainly had the advantage of numbers. Sure,
>someone might well have died and others might well have been cut. But,
>remove a seat cushion, put it in front of you and get them in mass - do it
>by sheer masses...... weapons were not needed in this case, just
>determination and a will to live.
Until now, hijackers had a list of demands and the passengers generally were
set free once the demands were met.
>
>And, lest some one arrived late to this conversation, the original topic
was
>about killing Sarah Brady and not about the terrorists. And I still say
>that was a tasteless remake that provides the antis with fuel that we
>gunnies are nothing but a bunch of nuts.
>
You read any of the wonderful, thoughtful, posts of the antis? Read posts by
Lee Harrison, Thumper, Lisa and some of the other wonderkind.
-*MORT*-
vz24_...@yahoo.com
> shouted:
>
> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
> >still hope . . .
> >
> >Novadave
>
> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
> that.
> Ken [NY]
gun bad enough, they would have found a way to sneak on. Arming the
passengers would have had stopped the hijackers cold. Is it just you,
or do all New Yorkers think handguns in general are evil bad things
that must be stopped? Laws only stop law abiding people. If a crook
can get whatever gun he wants, I would trust a law abiding citizen
with just the same.
Steve
Knisa
any more =)
Steve
"novadave" <nova...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c28e51ef.01091...@posting.google.com...
Jim Patrick
> Where did it say to arm the hijackers? If the hijackers had wanted a
>gun bad enough, they would have found a way to sneak on. Arming the
>passengers would have had stopped the hijackers cold. Is it just you,
>or do all New Yorkers think handguns in general are evil bad things
>that must be stopped? Laws only stop law abiding people. If a crook
>can get whatever gun he wants, I would trust a law abiding citizen
>with just the same.
[sigh] It's all NewYorkers, bless their pointy little hearts. They
haven't seen a handgun since [the 1930s?] when the Sullivan Law was
passed under Boss Sullivan. In fact they think that the presence of
a firearm defines either a criminal or a cop. In either case, put
your hands in the air and give them your wallet. <g>
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Jim Patrick <jpat...@shentel.net>
>Subject: Re: SARAH BRADY SPEAKS OUT!!!
>Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:17:52 -0400
>[sigh] It's all NewYorkers, bless their pointy little hearts. They
>haven't seen a handgun since [the 1930s?] when the Sullivan Law was
>passed under Boss Sullivan. In fact they think that the presence of
>a firearm defines either a criminal or a cop. In either case, put
>your hands in the air and give them your wallet. <g>
Once at LaGuardia airport, an airline check-in person asked my
pretty petite little wife for a second ID. She handed over her Texas
Concealed Carry permit. After a double take, the airline clerk called
over her boss for a hurried conference. Meanwhile, she and the other
check-in personel seemed to be looking for cover. A private party actually
having contact with those evil guns is apparently pretty scary to these
people.
Dr P
Stephan Rothstein
But do it carefully in New York. Giving either side your wallet there
has been known to result in shootings. <VBG>
Steve Rothstein
M. L. Davis
Gunner wrote in message ...
>either. Not a bad save at all.
>
>Gunner
>
I agee. Buut I hate that no one on any of the planes had a gun with which to
defend themselves and their fellow passengers.
-*MORT*-
)
>
>"Ken [NY )" <Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next> wrote in message
>news:3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net...
>> On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
>> shouted:
>>
>> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
>> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
>> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
>> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
>> >still hope . . .
>> >
>> >Novadave
>>
>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>> that.
>
>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Box cutterrs and a bomb". They threatened the passengers with a "bomb". The
>passengers who knew what the hijackers planned. They attacked and died
>anyway.
You sound as if dying is a bad thing.
I'll let you on a little secret - we all of us die. The only thing that
matters is how.
--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
)
>
>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>that.
>> Ken [NY]
>
>Balance of power, 20 armed citizens. Plus armed air crew against 3 -5
>terrorists.
Check your math. Balance of power = 20 armed citizens vs. 3 -
5 armed hijackers (won't they have guns too?), all equipped with the
latest 9mm handguns using 15 or 16 round clips, all shooting at each
other at 20,000 feet up. Sounds like that flight will go pretty far...
into the ground.
I agree with Americans' right to gun ownership but there are
places where we have to limit it.
When a Long Island RR train was shot up by a maniac a few
years ago, the RR came up with the idea of letting cops on board for
free, as long as they identified themselves to the conductor. These
are men trained in law enforcement and firearm usage and the chances
of a stray round going through a wall in a train is much less
dangerous than explosive decompression at 10,000 feet in an aircraft.
>When the odds of succeding get low enough - probanly below 10%. They
>will look for new unarmed targets. Like schools.
More likely a gallon or two of anthrax poison or lethal
bacteriological solution dumped in each of our resevoirs would take a
lot more lives. Bin Laden is known from satelite photos to be
experimenting with those weapons.
These people are insane but not stupid - and are quite
flexible.
Cordially,
)
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>that.
>> Ken [NY]
>
>
>Arming the passengers so they could oppose the hijackers. Not arming the
>hijackers.
But surely you see the problem with that logic: if you can
identify them as hijackers, you don't let them carry guns. But why on
earth would you let them on the plane in the first place?
Another thought: not all Muslim radicals look like bin Laden.
There are blondes, redheads, etc. and the next round of terror will
probably include guys and gals who look like the people next door.
Don't underestimate them.
Regards,
)
>Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next (Ken [NY)) wrote in message news:<3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>> On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
>> shouted:
>>
>> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
>> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
>> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
>> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
>> >still hope . . .
>> >
>> >Novadave
>>
>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>> that.
>> Ken [NY]
> Where did it say to arm the hijackers?
Novadave wants all passengers to be allowed to carry guns
aboard. If you allow all passengers to be armed, the hijackers, who
are also passengers, would have guns. Am I the only one who sees the
problem with that?
> If the hijackers had wanted a
>gun bad enough, they would have found a way to sneak on.
Extremely unlikely given the xray machines. That is why they
carried legal knives, not guns.
>Arming the
>passengers would have had stopped the hijackers cold.
>Is it just you,
>or do all New Yorkers think handguns in general are evil bad things
>that must be stopped? Laws only stop law abiding people. If a crook
>can get whatever gun he wants, I would trust a law abiding citizen
>with just the same.
>
>Steve
You got me wrong. I am a retired cop and believe in private
gun ownership, as do many other cops. I have a carry permit and own
three handguns. I have flown with my Sig-Sauer P226 on my belt but
know better than to fire a 9mm round on board. I just don't want a
shootout at 20,000 feet when I am on the fucking plane. Why not just
overcome the hijackers with non-lethal force instead, and have them
locked up at the next terminal?
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bad00c6...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:58:34 GMT, "Angelo D. Perez Jr."
><adpe...@email.com> shouted:
>
>>
>>"Ken [NY )" <Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next> wrote in message
>>news:3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net...
>>> On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
>>> shouted:
>>>
>>> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
>>> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
>>> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
>>> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
>>> >still hope . . .
>>> >
>>> >Novadave
>>>
>>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>> that.
>>
>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
>
> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
>
>
No. People with CCW permits. That means handguns - not rifles of any kind,
not grenades, not bombs, not .50 machineguns. THe hijackers would have to
get CCW permits, which would reqires background checks, which would likely
raise a red flag or two and they would not get them.
Besides, you forget: Hijackers don';t give a shit about the law, so they'd
get weapons on board despite the laws. It'd be nice if the passengers had
some armed people on their side for a change.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:09:56 GMT, M. L. Davis <oglet...@oglethorpe.com>
wrote:
>>
>>Box cutterrs and a bomb". They threatened the passengers with a "bomb".
The
>>passengers who knew what the hijackers planned. They attacked and died
>>anyway.
>
>You sound as if dying is a bad thing.
>
>I'll let you on a little secret - we all of us die. The only thing that
>matters is how.
>
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bae0128...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 20:55:11 GMT, msi...@xta.com (M. Simon) shouted:
>
>>
>>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>>that.
>>> Ken [NY]
>>
>>Balance of power, 20 armed citizens. Plus armed air crew against 3 -5
>>terrorists.
>
> Check your math. Balance of power = 20 armed citizens vs. 3 -
>5 armed hijackers (won't they have guns too?), all equipped with the
>latest 9mm handguns using 15 or 16 round clips, all shooting at each
>other at 20,000 feet up. Sounds like that flight will go pretty far...
>into the ground.
> I agree with Americans' right to gun ownership but there are
>places where we have to limit it.
> When a Long Island RR train was shot up by a maniac a few
>years ago, the RR came up with the idea of letting cops on board for
>free, as long as they identified themselves to the conductor. These
>are men trained in law enforcement and firearm usage and the chances
>of a stray round going through a wall in a train is much less
>dangerous than explosive decompression at 10,000 feet in an aircraft.
One round won't cause explosive decompression - especially not at 10,000
feet. You are aware, are you not, that jetliners have had very large holes,
several feet square, put in the due to structural failure and have landed
safely?
>
>>When the odds of succeding get low enough - probanly below 10%. They
>>will look for new unarmed targets. Like schools.
So, we don't protect ourselves until they start going house to house,
shooting families?
>
> More likely a gallon or two of anthrax poison or lethal
>bacteriological solution dumped in each of our resevoirs would take a
>lot more lives. Bin Laden is known from satelite photos to be
>experimenting with those weapons.
> These people are insane but not stupid - and are quite
>flexible.
> Cordially,
Those threats are possdible, but you are aware that we have an anthrax
vaccine? You are aware that resivoirs are tested for chemicals?
You are aware that the Japanese went much farther in WWII? They used clay
boombs loaded with plague infested fleas to wipe out Chinese villages, with
plans to do the same to America?
So, we should allow more planes to be hijacked wiythout armed resistance
because the enemny will find anbother way to get at us?
No thanks.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3baf0491...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:13:40 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
>>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>>handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>>that.
>>> Ken [NY]
>>
>>
>>Arming the passengers so they could oppose the hijackers. Not arming the
>>hijackers.
>
> But surely you see the problem with that logic: if you can
>identify them as hijackers, you don't let them carry guns. But why on
>earth would you let them on the plane in the first place?
Hopefully, they'd end up in jail instead. Another benefit.
> Another thought: not all Muslim radicals look like bin Laden.
>There are blondes, redheads, etc. and the next round of terror will
>probably include guys and gals who look like the people next door.
Maybe theyll operate on normal US citizens and implanrt a micro chip in
their brain, turning them into remote controlled hijackers. Maybe they'll
steal American babies and raise them to hate America. Maybe they'll invent
teleportation and teleport large chunks of the plane. Gotyt any more way out
there scenarios?
>Don't underestimate them.
Why do you underestimate your fellow Americans?
-*MORT*-
.
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bb1061a...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On 16 Sep 2001 17:57:59 -0700, vz24_...@yahoo.com shouted:
>
>>Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next (Ken [NY)) wrote in message
news:<3ba6df27...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>>> On 15 Sep 2001 16:04:17 -0700, nova...@hotmail.com (novadave)
>>> shouted:
>>>
>>> >Does this woman have her head up her backside or what? If we were
>>> >allowed to care on planes this kind of thing wouldn't happen. What do
>>> >you think the presenseo of an armed marshal will have on a airplane?
>>> >If you ask me the wrong Brady caught the bullet. and yet there's
>>> >still hope . . .
>>> >
>>> >Novadave
>>>
>>> Please explain to us out here how arming the hijackers with
>>> handguns would have stopped the hijacking. I am really curious about
>>> that.
>>> Ken [NY]
>> Where did it say to arm the hijackers?
>
> Novadave wants all passengers to be allowed to carry guns
>aboard. If you allow all passengers to be armed, the hijackers, who
>are also passengers, would have guns. Am I the only one who sees the
>problem with that?
>
>> If the hijackers had wanted a
>>gun bad enough, they would have found a way to sneak on.
>
> Extremely unlikely given the xray machines. That is why they
>carried legal knives, not guns.
Have you ever seen hidden camera video of baggae handlers stealing from
passengers' bags? Haave you heard about the airlines employees who were
smuggling drugs? If that can happen, how hard would it be for employees to
smuggle a gun on board?
>
>>Arming the
>>passengers would have had stopped the hijackers cold.
>
>>Is it just you,
>>or do all New Yorkers think handguns in general are evil bad things
>>that must be stopped? Laws only stop law abiding people. If a crook
>>can get whatever gun he wants, I would trust a law abiding citizen
>>with just the same.
>>
>>Steve
>
> You got me wrong. I am a retired cop and believe in private
>gun ownership, as do many other cops. I have a carry permit and own
>three handguns. I have flown with my Sig-Sauer P226 on my belt but
>know better than to fire a 9mm round on board. I just don't want a
>shootout at 20,000 feet when I am on the fucking plane.
So, you'd rather be on the plane when it hits another building, with no gin.
Or you would not fire even if you had a gun? YOu that bad of a shot? You are
aware that airliners have suffered a lot of damage and still landed safely -
even with 20' long chunks out of the fuselage?
Why not just overcome the hijackers with non-lethal force instead, and have
them locked up at the next terminal?
What? Stun guns? Gas? Clubs? Guns will do the job.
-*MORT*-
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next (Ken [NY))
>Subject: Re: SARAH BRADY SPEAKS OUT!!!
> When a Long Island RR train was shot up by a maniac a few
>years ago, the RR came up with the idea of letting cops on board for
>free, as long as they identified themselves to the conductor. These
>are men trained in law enforcement and firearm usage
In Texas, Cancealed carry permit holders have to pass the same test on
firearms proficiency as do Sworn police officers. If my orginal CCW class
and renewal is any indication, we tend to be much better shots than the
police. E.g., it takes 170 points to pass out of 250. I got 247 and was
only toward the middle because of all the prefect scores. To the police, a
firearm is only a tool. To us, it is a sport like golf.
and the chances>of a stray round going through a wall in a train is much
less>dangerous than explosive decompression at 10,000 feet in an aircraft.
How many times do we have to say this-- There is no such thing as
"explosive decompression" from a bullet hole in an aircraft. BTW, B29
bombers were pressurized over 50 years ago. Do you really think they would
pressurize military aircraft if a stay bullet hole would cause them to explode
?
Dr P
Jim Patrick
> When a Long Island RR train was shot up by a maniac a few
>years ago, the RR came up with the idea of letting cops on board for
>free, as long as they identified themselves to the conductor. These
>are men trained in law enforcement and firearm usage and the chances
>of a stray round going through a wall in a train is much less
>dangerous than explosive decompression at 10,000 feet in an aircraft.
Congratulations on achieving the ScienceMoron(tm) Award.
This prestigious honor is bestowed upon the people who exhibit the
finest examples of flatulent bleating about non-existent phenomenon.
The fact is that airplanes do not explode, implode, or any *plode from
small holes in the fuselage. At very high altitude they will slowly
leak air from the passenger compartment. Tape, gum, or wadded toilet
paper can easily seal the leak.
(Is it just coincidence that the same people who argue against CCW on
airplanes ALL believe in the "explosive decompression" theory too? )
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next (Ken [NY))
>Subject: Re: SARAH BRADY SPEAKS OUT!!!
> Novadave wants all passengers to be allowed to carry guns
>aboard. If you allow all passengers to be armed, the hijackers, who
>are also passengers, would have guns. Am I the only one who sees the
>problem with that?
They don't call firearms equalizers for nothing. The hijackers
not there to get into firefights with the passengers. With armed
passengers, it becomes impossible to carry out their 'mission'. So they
won't bother. It is the same reason Cheney announced that that future
highjacked planes would likely be shot down. Even these people don't value
their lives this little.
>> If the hijackers had wanted a
>>gun bad enough, they would have found a way to sneak on.
> Extremely unlikely given the xray machines. That is why they
>carried legal knives, not guns.
Likely, they carried knives mostly to make a point--- that
organization and a willingness to die would succeed even with the most
'primitive' weapons. It was their way of making a point about the uselessness
of the American arsenal in these circumstances.
Dr P
)
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
>>
>> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
>>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
>>
>>
>
>No. People with CCW permits.
Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
a gun?
Peter H. Proctor
>From: Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next (Ken [NY))
>Subject: Re: SARAH BRADY SPEAKS OUT!!!
> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>a gun?
> Ken [NY]
Background checks and you generally have to be a citizen or at least a
permanent resident..
This would have pretty much excluded the hijackers. Remember, the
perpitrators of this were a pretty select bunch-- western-educated,
flight-trained, English-speaking, patient, and willing to die for the
cause. If your average suicide bomber is any indication, I suspect the
world-supply of such just got used up, at least for the moment. On top of
this, you add a US citizen and ability to pass a background check and the
number goes right to zero.
Besides which, a CCW carrier has to inform the airline before he gets
on the airplane... None of these guys would have passed the (er) profile...
Dr P
)
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>> You got me wrong. I am a retired cop and believe in private
>>gun ownership, as do many other cops. I have a carry permit and own
>>three handguns. I have flown with my Sig-Sauer P226 on my belt but
>>know better than to fire a 9mm round on board. I just don't want a
>>shootout at 20,000 feet when I am on the fucking plane.
>
>So, you'd rather be on the plane when it hits another building, with no gin.
>Or you would not fire even if you had a gun? YOu that bad of a shot?
No, see below. And I am a Master with both service pistol and
revolver, and a Sharpshooter with my 2" Colt.
>
>Why not just overcome the hijackers with non-lethal force instead, and have
>them locked up at the next terminal?
>
>
>What? Stun guns? Gas? Clubs? Guns will do the job.
No, hands and feet. Elbows. Knees. Drive a ballpoint pen into
their necks. Hit them with your briefcase.Thousands of people are
arrested every day in America without the use of weapons. I managed to
have a successful and very active 34 year police career without
killing anyone, like most cops. Surely a plane full of passengers and
flight attendants can overcome 3 to 5 jerks armed with box cutters and
pen knives. You underestimate the American public.
But unfortunately, passengers and flight crew members are
accustomed to just letting the hijacker do what he wants and flying to
where he wants to land. This time that mindset was fatal to a lot of
people. Only some guys on the fourth plane realized what was going to
happen and tried to take back the plane. Unfortunately, there is
evidence (thanks to a cell phone call from Barbara Olsen) that the
flight crew was already dead or dying and the maniacs already
controlled the aircraft.
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bb91656...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:51:17 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
>>> You got me wrong. I am a retired cop and believe in private
>>>gun ownership, as do many other cops. I have a carry permit and own
>>>three handguns. I have flown with my Sig-Sauer P226 on my belt but
>>>know better than to fire a 9mm round on board. I just don't want a
>>>shootout at 20,000 feet when I am on the fucking plane.
>>
>>So, you'd rather be on the plane when it hits another building, with no
gin.
>>Or you would not fire even if you had a gun? YOu that bad of a shot?
>
> No, see below. And I am a Master with both service pistol and
>revolver, and a Sharpshooter with my 2" Colt.
>
>>
>>Why not just overcome the hijackers with non-lethal force instead, and
have
>>them locked up at the next terminal?
>>
>>
>>What? Stun guns? Gas? Clubs? Guns will do the job.
>
> No, hands and feet. Elbows. Knees. Drive a ballpoint pen into
>their necks. Hit them with your briefcase.Thousands of people are
>arrested every day in America without the use of weapons. I managed to
>have a successful and very active 34 year police career without
>killing anyone, like most cops. Surely a plane full of passengers and
>flight attendants can overcome 3 to 5 jerks armed with box cutters and
>pen knives.
Oh? One of the hijackers holds a box over his head. THere are wires and
maybe lights, and he shouts: "If you do not stop, I will blow us al;l up!'
What next?
You underestimate the American public.
You underestimate the hijackers.
> But unfortunately, passengers and flight crew members are
>accustomed to just letting the hijacker do what he wants and flying to
>where he wants to land. This time that mindset was fatal to a lot of
>people.
That mindset has been fatal to planeloads of people befoore 9/11/01.
Only some guys on the fourth plane realized what was going to
>happen and tried to take back the plane. Unfortunately, there is
>evidence (thanks to a cell phone call from Barbara Olsen) that the
>flight crew was already dead or dying and the maniacs already
>controlled the aircraft.
A gun or two could have tipped the ballance in their favor. Dead flight crew
or no, the passengers would have a chance that one of them couuld get the
plane down - with a little help from the ground.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bb71598...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:30:14 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
>>>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
>>>
>>> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
>>>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No. People with CCW permits.
>
> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>a gun?
Non US citizen, failing background check due to FBI alert?
-*MORT*-
)
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
>Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bb71598...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:30:14 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
>><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>>
>>>>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
>>>>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. People with CCW permits.
>>
>> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>>a gun?
>
>Non US citizen, failing background check due to FBI alert?
There were no FBI alerts on the majority of the 19 hijackers.
These people paid for thier flights and rental cars with valid credit
cards and had to have photo ID to get on the planes. How did they get
those items?
There is no reason they could not also get pistol permits and
guns.
Cordially,
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3ba63073...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:21:40 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
>>
>>Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3bb71598...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>>>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:30:14 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
>>><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
>>>>>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. People with CCW permits.
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>>>a gun?
>>
>>Non US citizen, failing background check due to FBI alert?
>
> There were no FBI alerts on the majority of the 19 hijackers.
>These people paid for thier flights and rental cars with valid credit
>cards and had to have photo ID to get on the planes. How did they get
>those items?
> There is no reason they could not also get pistol permits and
>guns.
Thery did nothing that would generate the kind of background investigation
applying for a CCW permit would.
-*MORT*-
)
Proctor) shouted:
>> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>>a gun?
>> Ken [NY]
>
>Background checks and you generally have to be a citizen or at least a
>permanent resident..
>
> This would have pretty much excluded the hijackers. Remember, the
>perpitrators of this were a pretty select bunch-- western-educated,
>flight-trained, English-speaking, patient, and willing to die for the
>cause.
Some of them were here in the US for eight years, plenty of
time to get handgun permits.
Blake A. Loyd
"Ken [NY )" <Ken4...@usa.SPAM.next> wrote in message
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:21:40 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
>
> >
> >Ken [NY ) wrote in message
<3bb71598...@news.speakeasy.net>...
> >>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:30:14 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
> >><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
> >>
> >>>>>Sounds like a reading comprehension problem on your part.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not really. Novadave wants people to carry handguns on air
> >>>>flights. That means the hijackers as well, right?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No. People with CCW permits.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
> >>a gun?
> >
> >Non US citizen, failing background check due to FBI alert?
>
> There were no FBI alerts on the majority of the 19 hijackers.
> These people paid for thier flights and rental cars with valid
credit
> cards
Credit cards are for convience. They could have as easily paid by
check or with cash. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with
whether or not they could get a gun permit.
>and had to have photo ID to get on the planes.
I haven't flown for a while, but have to ask are you absolutely
certain that they had to have a photo ID? Or did they just have to
have the ticket?
>How did they get
> those items?
There is nothing in itself criminal about having a credit card or
buying a plane ticket, so I fail to see what your point is. And I
don't think they do fingerprints and and a background check by law
enforcement when someone wants to obtain a credit card or buy a plane
ticket. Do you have your fingerprints taken and a background check by
law enforcement when you attemp to obtain a CCW permit? The answer is
yes.
> There is no reason they could not also get pistol permits and
> guns.
There are a number of reasons the CCW pewrmit issue is a red herring;
the background check, nationality (not US citizens so they don't have
the same rights as US citizens), lists of known terrorists, easy
certifiability of legitamacy of CCW permits is possible with
computers. Let them spend money buying a false CCW permit and nail
them as they attempt to pass it off as real. Of course they can get a
gun; that is the very point. And they don'thave to buy a gun here as
it could be smuggled into the country. If they are willing to attempt
to get a gun on to a plane and they succeed, removing the ability of
law abiding citizens to protect themselves leaves them at the mercy of
the terrorists. We have seen just how much mercy these terrorist have
in their hearts on Sept 1. Plus, all those that think that putting
one federal Sky Marshal on every flight will provide security are
deluding themselves. All it would take is a two stage attack, the
first to identify the Sky Marshal and then another to remove him as a
threat to the terrorists. Remember these people are not intent on
surviving so to sacrifice their lives to find out who is the Sky
Marshal and to help their compatriots to succeed in the mission would
be a great honor for them. However, I don't believe the terrorists
would be quite so willing to throw their lives away if there were a
greater likelyhood of their plan failing as would be the case if CCW
permit holders were allowed to carry aboard airlines.
Michael Zarlenga
: Oh? One of the hijackers holds a box over his head. THere are wires and
: maybe lights, and he shouts: "If you do not stop, I will blow us al;l up!'
: What next?
You ask yourself: what's worse, a live hijacker with a bomb
or a dead hijacker with a bomb?
I think the first scenario is almost always worse.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed
these acts and those who harbored them."
)
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> shouted:
Straw man argument. There is no evidence that we know of that
they had a similulated or genuine bomb. Anyway, I will throw your
question back at you: what would your planeload of people armed with
handguns do about such a threat? Shoot the guy holding the bomb?
If you are not too squeamish, here are a few law enforcement
defensive techniques that could be used against a terrorist armed with
a box cutter:
1. if he is in front of you, drive the heel of your hand with
full force into the bridge of his nose. That would either kill him or
give him something else to think about.
2. drive your thumbs into his eyes and pop his eyeballs
3. this one from the FBI: if you are on the ground and he is
standing over you, lunge forward, pinning either foot down to the
floor while driving your shoulder into his knee. This will probably
make him limp around prison for the rest of his life, after you make
your citizen's arrest.
4. if he is on the floor, fall with your full weight, using your
knees, into his solar plexus. That will most likely speed his way to
his heaven.
>You underestimate the American public.
>
>You underestimate the hijackers.
Unfortunately, we all did.
>> But unfortunately, passengers and flight crew members are
>>accustomed to just letting the hijacker do what he wants and flying to
>>where he wants to land. This time that mindset was fatal to a lot of
>>people.
>
>That mindset has been fatal to planeloads of people befoore 9/11/01.
A terrorism expert was asked about that the other day on CNN
and he said that flight crews are trained to comply fully with all
possible demands because a scenario like this before Tuesday was
unknown in this country. 100% of the time they just want to go to Cuba
or some other screwy place. He said that you can expect that training
to be updated in view of what happened on 9/11.
>Only some guys on the fourth plane realized what was going to
>>happen and tried to take back the plane. Unfortunately, there is
>>evidence (thanks to a cell phone call from Barbara Olsen) that the
>>flight crew was already dead or dying and the maniacs already
>>controlled the aircraft.
>
>A gun or two could have tipped the ballance in their favor. Dead flight crew
>or no, the passengers would have a chance that one of them couuld get the
>plane down - with a little help from the ground.
If they knew earlier that they would become part of a cruise
missle, I am sure that they would have acted sooner. When they found
out about the WTC attacks via cell phone, they did act. Hindsight is
wonderfully precise.
I think that there are two groups of pro-gun, pro second
amendment people fall into generally: those like me who responsibly
support the ownership and use of guns, and the gun nuts. Those nuts
are the types that probably sleep with their guns, fondling them in
the darkness of their bedrooms. Of the latter group, I would bet that
99% of them have never been in pistol combat. Case in point: in the
NYC Diallo shooting, there were four men who were very proficient in
combat practice, using man-shaped targets. But when they mistakingly
thought they were in an actual shooting situation with a real, live
man shooting back, they fired 41 shots. 19 of those rounds hit Mr.
Diallo. And very few of the 19 rounds were in lethal areas of his
body. But they sure shot the snot out of the door, the steps and the
inner walls of the doorway. Would you expect an untrained gun owner do
better in a panic situation?
The second group I speak of above, the nuts, are the types who
would like to resolve a hijacking by playing it like an arcade game -
sit on their fat asses and fire away, all rounds hitting their
intended target. Nice and clean, no blood, just round holes in the
hijackers' foreheads. They have minimal or no training in combat
shooting and probably are only adept at shooting stationery bulllseye
targets or tin cans. A crowded plane with even one of this type of
citizen shooting away is probably going to result in everybody BUT the
hijackers being hit. You know what air rage is; would you want the
idiot who took a shit on a serving tray because he was cut off from
more booze armed with a gun?
Sorry if I don't go along with the proposal of allowing guns
on planes, but I would rather you do what some other writer just
posted - start your own airline which allows armed passengers. As long
as I can fly another airline, I'm happy.
M. L. Davis
Ken [NY ) wrote in message <3ba834bc...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:44:08 UNDEFINED, ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H.
>Proctor) shouted:
>
>>> Why wouldn't a hijacker be able to also get a carry permit and
>>>a gun?
>>> Ken [NY]
>>
>>Background checks and you generally have to be a citizen or at least a
>>permanent resident..
>>
>> This would have pretty much excluded the hijackers. Remember,
the
>>perpitrators of this were a pretty select bunch-- western-educated,
>>flight-trained, English-speaking, patient, and willing to die for the
>>cause.
>
> Some of them were here in the US for eight years, plenty of
>time to get handgun permits.
> Ken [NY]
But, given what we know about them, I doubt they would have passed the
background check. The FBI would have alerted on them.
Have you ever had a security background check? I have. I doubt they'd have
passed.
-*MORT*-
M. L. Davis
Michael Zarlenga wrote in message ...
>In alt.law-enforcement M. L. Davis <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>: Oh? One of the hijackers holds a box over his head. THere are wires and
>: maybe lights, and he shouts: "If you do not stop, I will blow us al;l
up!'
>: What next?
>
>You ask yourself: what's worse, a live hijacker with a bomb
>or a dead hijacker with a bomb?
>
>I think the first scenario is almost always worse.
>
your chances are not so good. Me, I'd take the chance and go for them. But
I'd rather have a gun in my hand when I did it.
-*MORT*-
-*MORT*-
)
<bal...@btconline.net> shouted:
>>and had to have photo ID to get on the planes.
>
>I haven't flown for a while, but have to ask are you absolutely
>certain that they had to have a photo ID? Or did they just have to
>have the ticket?
I have flown a lot, and always had to show photo ID.