The airplanes seized and flown into buildings were commandeered by guys with knives. Why would they be allowed on a plane again?
Why was this decision made, really?
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Why? Because you need to apply the same logic behind your right to bear arms to this situation. Knives don't hijack planes, madmen hijack planes. Taking away knives isn't going to prevent a hijacking. Taking away knives is going to prevent me, as a law abiding citizen the ability to properly defend myself on that plane. Don't take away good citizens rights to carry a knife on a plane just because of a handful of abhorent terrorists.
Am I missing any?
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"The airplanes seized and flown into buildings were commandeered by guys with knives. Why would they be allowed on a plane again?"
Change that to: The children killed inside the school building were killed by guys with guns. Why would they be allowed in a school building again?
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
As long as the cabin doors stay secured and locked and the cockpit is armed, I say let americans carry their pocket knives, lotions and baby milk once again. Target the terrorists and not every implimentation that can be used for an attack. Besides, if somebody tries to overtake a cabin again, they will get jumped on by half the passengers. If you're still afraid to fly, then drive; like many people have been doing anyways do to fear of attack or all the BS price increases.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Apples to oranges sunshine, aside from the fact that there is no Constitutional amendment that specifically says you're allowed to carry knives on a plane, the gunman wasn't allowed in the school in the first place, so couldn't possibly be allowed in "again".
Principle is the same Mingus. PS it is the right to bear arms. I consider a knife bearing arms. So it is a right.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"the gunman wasn't allowed in the school in the first place, so couldn't possibly be allowed in "again". "
They "they" in my statement was referring to guns. Just as the "they" in notsocialists statement referred to knives...
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
" Taking away knives is going to prevent me, as a law abiding citizen the ability to properly defend myself on that plane. "
Then, by extension of that logic, firearms should be allowed on planes. No one in their right mind wants to risk bringing a knife to gun fight, right?
In a controlled environment, such as an airplane or a prison, weapons control policies do work and do prevent homicides, injuries, etc. but that is only because they are in fact controlled environments. If someone could come up with a plan to place the rest of the world into a similar controlled environment with a guarantee that there would be no government intrusiveness or loss of individual freedom then I would concede that firearms would not be needed by anyone.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Nothing short of inventing a magic wand that would permanently erase the existence of firearms and firearm technology from human history will accomplish this feat. It is mere fantasy. However, I'm sure that if it was possible, we would still be having this same debate except the subject matter would be of edged weapons or even sticks and stones. You see, it is human nature that is the problem and that is what truly needs to be controlled to gain a safe environment. The amount of your personal safety is inversely proportionate to your amount of personal freedom. That equation is as solid as any law of physics.
I'm all for the Constitution and all it affords but I also believe history has taught us that guns, knives, box cutters, bombs, etc. should be not allowed in certain places including airplanes and schools.
They, the Obama administration, is doing this as a means of trying to make republicans look bad, and for absolutely no other reason. Obama is wanting things to go wrong so that he can win the house for liberal democrats in 2014. He should be ashamed but he won't be and far too many will believe the evil.
3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sorry about the double post and using is instead of are...
But, remember...Obama and his administration have changed the rules w/o any real explaination. This was not a republican demand or even a request. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the sequester as Carney has admitted. Remember...remember!
Just want to add to the conversation, hopefully it's helpful. First I have to agree with Kozy, based on what I've seen for the last 25 years, coming from the Left, I have to question the motivation of this change at this time, somehow politics are involved. I am not saying the Right is above it, but the Left is blatant. To my point; I understand that knives of a certain length or less will be allowed. If memory serves, the 9/11 attackers used box cutters, big difference. A box cutter is a knife like instrument you can buy right now out at the home depot. It would possess a razor sharp segmented blade of approximately 6 inches. Under normal use 1 or 2 segments of the cutting edge are exposed depending on the depth of cut required. Once the cutting edge dulls you simply snap of the bad segments and adjust the the tool to expose the next sharp ones. Very handy in my business and a hundred others, I'm sure.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
But, if the full length of the razor sharp blade is exposed and locked in position, it is no longer a tool but a lethal weapon. Don't want help the bad guys, (the Left), but is it possible the the some some of the hasty restrictions made immediately after 9/11, have been found to be totally unnecessary. Especially in light of recent technological advances.
Did anyone on here see anything that involved party p0litics ?
Maybe Kozy was reffering to the planes brought down under GB's watch !
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The republicans are doing a good enough job of making themselves look bad.
They can't even agree to agree.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
By the way Kozy they do have prescriptions for that illness.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Once the terr. entered the cockpit and killed the pilots it was over.
Listen learned the hard way .
Maybe they should have payed more attention to the warnings given in March and April that Bin laden had something planned,
So what happened to today's question about the thankfully dead communist thug, Chavez?
The last guy in Florida that agreed with Kozy got sucked to the center of the earth. Obama told the Devil to*****this Rep straight to Hell. The real Devil not George Bush.
Don't worry be happy.
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
How's that maple syrup?
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"So what happened to today's question about the thankfully dead communist thug, Chavez?"
I noticed it was gone also.
I also noticed a comment I posted last night on this topic is also gone.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
We shouldn't get too worked up over this rule change. If terrorists ever did try again to hijack another airplane then Obama could use his vengeance weapon, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, to save the day.
I just hope that Eric Holder isn't in the business of selling box cutters also.
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Ladybug states: "Maybe Kozy was reffering to the planes brought down under GB's watch !"
You mean the terrorist plans that were discovered through the 911 commission that suggested those terrorist plans were being hatched prior for two years? The same terrorist plan that Clinton had warning of by Intel chatter suggesting a 38% probability of attack, the same Intel that Clinton administration failed to act upon? The same President that had Bin Laden and let him go? Right?
I bet ladybug that even you believe that those terrorists were so brilliant that they had insight to who the President would be when they launched their assault on America? Right?
The same President that had only been in office 9 months but managed to stop the terrorists from carrying out the rest of those two year plans and kept America free from terrorist attacks for 7 more years. Right?
"Good policy change or not?"
Who knows? Might be, might not be. Time will only tell. It appears that this is mostly about fulfilling the complaints of the TSA. They can have an easier job searching carry ons and that is what they are claiming delays flights and upsets the passengers. I never understood this argument from the start anyhow. A simple pencil can be used as weapon. Stopping guns carried on flights was understandable. In my opinion it's not about the weapon, it's about the individual carrying the weapon and that we can not control when it comes to flights. There will never be a solution to this. When somebody flips out and has the desire to kill, there going to kill...bottom line.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |