Cockpit guns

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 13 2002,09:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When a robber points a gun at you on the street, you won't be debating your constitutional rights with him.

<span id='postcolor'>

Especially not if you happen to be a pilot getting of work and you have a gun  <span id='postcolor'>

LOL

TOO funny

It must be something to do with all that water around such a large country... there are a fair number of Canadians who seem to share a similar point of view with Residuum. Where's Assault when you need him? The thing is that they often cant seem to see past their own cozy little lives to the realitry of what the majority of people in the world have to deal with. I think that in order to pass the first year of a college/university program, you should have to spend a few months in a truly destitute country of some sort, doing volunteer work and such. Then when you come back to what is, in the end, a fantastically privledged life... you might appreciate what other people in the world have to live with.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't give a shit about the people in Kosovo because they aren't Americans. Americans rights are described in the Constitution and its my right to not want them infringed.

<span id='postcolor'>

There you go making those incredibly trite comments that I chided you for earlier. The constitution is, essentially, a piece of paper. It can and has been ammended. The first version of the Constitution still allowed white folks to keep black folks as slaves. So PLEASE dont use it as some almighty absolute that you can live your life by. And please try to open your eyes and see that there is truth in the concept that what happens in the rest of the world actually DOES affect you, even if you'd rather it didnt. 'Not giving a shit' about other people generally ends up with the other people hating you, and then giving you all sorts of reasons to moan and weep about how 'everyone hates us and is jealous of us' ... think about it...

[Longinius 1]

"First off, your whole thing about keeping guns off planes ignores the fact that air marshalls have guns.  In fact, they let FBI agents, DEA agents, Customs agents, and other federal law enforcement employees carry guns onto a plane."

Yes, but a terrorist cant count on and plan for one of those guys being on the plane and him getting a gun from them. He CAN plan on getting a gun from the pilots.

How would he get the gun of a pilot? There are numerous ways, human imagination is greater than our foresight of things to come. Threatening passangers is just one way. How many pilots would have the guts to not give in when children were being killed outside their door? I don't care how many weekend seminars (sp) you send them to, that doesnt make them stonecold people.

"World peace is nothing more than a dream.  We will never reach it.  There will always be neo-nazis who want to kill all blacks/jews/arabs.  There will always be Muslim Fundamentalists who want to see the complete destruction of Israel and America."

Yes, and Christian megalomaniacs aswell.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 13 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your view of "democracy means nothing you must live" works for war torn Europe, not America.  And thats why we're better.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO. That just shows that you know nothing about the real world. Unfortunately that goes for a lot of your politicians and citizens. Being willing to die for democracy is no better then being willing to die for a religion on nazism or any other theoretical ideology that has very little to do with the real world. Your view of defending democracy at every cost is just as bad as Al-Quedas view of defending Islam at any cost.

Yes, democracy is very nice if you feel that your human needs for security, food..etc are guaranteed. My point is that you have to accept either that you are under no threat and stop bitching and bombing around the world  or you can accept that you are under a theret and take the measures required to achieve the safety and stop bitching about loosing your rights. When a robber points a gun at you on the street, you won't be debating your constitutional rights with him.

Welcome to the real world, I can only say.<span id='postcolor'>

First, America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. Second, the constitution doesn't grant rights, It recognizes fundamental human rights.

You need to realize that freedoms can give you all the security you need. As someone said before, when a robber points a gun at you, you use your second amendment right to pull out your gun and stop him. I see no reason to ever restrict rights except in extreme cases. I think the US government and military is strong enough to continue allowing people to exercise their freedoms. We bombed Afghanistan because they presented a threat. We will probably go after Saddam Hussein because he is a threat (by developing chem. weapons and nukes). We shouldn't have bombed Kosovo, that was a stupid decision by Clinton.

You're talking about how America is a bad place because we have a lot of freedom and there are very few wars in our part of the world. So, are you saying that europe is a better place because they have fewer freedoms and have been at war for about 500 years? Welcome to the real world, where freedom makes for a much better quality of life.

[MDRZulu 0]

What if they reinforced the cockpits then made a kind of turrent mounted handgun that is unable to face the pilot and co pilot but face pretty much the entire cabin and have alarms set up so passengers could push a button if there were a problem then a pilot could go to the stupid turret thing and cap a hi jacker if he had too. After re reading that it sounds kind of stupid and that would cost alot so that wouldn't happen.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 13 2002,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're talking about how America is a bad place because we have a lot of freedom and there are very few wars in our part of the world.  So, are you saying that europe is a better place because they have fewer freedoms and have been at war for about 500 years?  Welcome to the real world, where freedom makes for a much better quality of life. <span id='postcolor'>

No, I am just saying that it is naive to think that America will be a peaceful place for ever. Sooner or later you will get your share of wars on American soil. Just look at world history.

And after all, all these current discussions have come up because America has a problem with its security, not Europe

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 13 2002,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First, America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.  Second, the constitution doesn't grant rights, It recognizes fundamental human rights.<span id='postcolor'>

The concept that there is any such thing as a 'fundamental human right' is totally flawed.

There is no natural right to anything beyond what we did when we first came out of the trees. Anything else is a construction of man, and therefore not a fundamental right.

What you are doing is applying what your culture BELIEVES should be fundamental rights. Is there anything wrong with that? No. But so long as you cling to the idea that you have a fundamental right to ANYTHING beyond breathing.... you are going to discover at some point that someone stronger is going to come along and take it away.

Will that happen here or in any other first world nation? Likely not.

All I aks is that people stop confusing something that is a construct of man with a natural right.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

I think they are going to have Air Marshells onboard, are they?I rember reading it in Air&Space magazine.They have special bullets that shatter when it hit anything eccept flesh.And the air marshells can pull out there gun and fire with out aiming, and hit the terroist dead on with one shot.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 13 2002,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ July 12 2002,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, how about a button in the cockpit to flood the passenger compartment with incapaciting/knockout gas (chloroform)...stupid idea?<span id='postcolor'>

Do you want to be the poor guy who gets knocked out, gets your brain cells killed because some dumb pilot accidently hit the button?  I don't.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously the button would be safe-guarded so it is almost impossible to hit accidentally, like the self-destruct button.

[Aaron Kane 0]

Residuum and Denoir just lost all credibility from me.

Now back to the subject, I've seen that they are developing guns that will not fire unless they are in the hands of the person they were assigned to.  They work with some little ring or something.  The air marshalls would be equipped with these, and with the before-mentioned bullets, and then the problem is solved.  You have highly trained guys on planes with guns only they can fire.  Its all you need.

However, I do agree that there is definently a lack of air marshalls, but hopefully that will improve over time.  I believe that the government should run this part of airline security simply because if something goes wrong, they'll take the shit for it.  The goverment doesnt want one of their agents to suddenly go crazy and shoot the pilot, of course, but who's to say that a private security cooperation doesnt have more sinister thoughts on their minds?

[Frisbee 0]

*bangbangbang...(repeated sounds of head hitting desk)*

What a completely shortsighted AMERICAN idea.

Jeez,what is this,the wild west?

The natural thing to do would be to have decent security in the airports themselves. (keyword : prevention)

They don't need to be friendly,so they walk around with dogs and submachineguns,would you rather like some moron get even a steak knife on the plane.

Just a typical 'if we kill them they can't kill us' solution,it's completely idiotic,train your security officers,TRAIN and equip them DECENTLY => governement instance is the best solution for that,they just need to be funded properly.

More power,more corruptness,bullshit,AFAIK the european parliament hasn't been hit by a jet i think,what does that,tell you? (oh wait,you're just going to say that's because europe isn't important,my bad)

It may be me,it may be my age,but america's problem is it's society,so geared towards conservation that it's limping behind badly (*cough*educational system*cough*.....)

[MDRZulu 0]

It does tell you that pretty much the rest of the world hates the United States and they dont hate europe for the most part. A good portion of the hate in the world is directed at the US which makes it a target. Hating country = violence in country . The US can bulk up the airline security all they want but they can get hit just as easy with a Semi-Truck. A continent is kind of stupid target unless you are talking Austrailia since all the continents are composed of many different countries with different enemies, policies, and friends and that is why partly why europe hasn't been hit. I would'nt be surprised if the UK were to be attacked by terrorist (though they do keep away from trouble far better than the US) in some way since yeah Im gonna say it, it is the most powerful country in europe and power = importance thats just they way it is. The more important/powerful target the more meaningful the message is when you strike them. So dont speak so soon terrorism isn't over.

[Longinius 1]

"You're talking about how America is a bad place because we have a lot of freedom and there are very few wars in our part of the world. So, are you saying that europe is a better place because they have fewer freedoms and have been at war for about 500 years?"

1. Atleast we have been around for 500+ years...

2. What freedoms do Americans have that we don't?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

ahh, I love a good US v Everyone flame war.

Denoir, with his world weary, "everyone who has any idealistic flair whatsoever is naive, especially if they are from that thar new-fangled Uhmuhrica", frustratingly logical arguments on one side.

Residuum, and the other Americans in the crowd, predictably taking any sort of criticism as personal attacks against their country, and falling back on the cliched "Everyone hates America just cuz we are free n' stuff"

sigh

Fuckit- look at it this way. Americans believe that we DO have fundamental human rights, and that democracy is the next step up the ladder in human development. America is about transitioning from the "Power grows from the barrel of a gun" set of thinking to a more "Senatus Populusque Romanus" philosophy, if you follow me. Now, just because Europe has been ruled by the sword for the past thousand years, doesnt mean that there is nothing else left. And you see inklings of natural democratic movements in less than perfect conditions out there- the American Civil Rights Movement in the '60s, the Prague Spring of '68, the list goes on. Now, you can cower in your typically European, pragmatically cynical "Oh-no-here-comes-another-one-hit-the-dirt" mentality, or you can say that you arent gonna take the same shit any more, and if you are willing to shed blood for it, it can happen. Now you Euros can stand up or you can take it in the ass for another millennia, but I think it is fairly clear what America plans on doing- and if it requires a little naivete, so be it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fuckit- look at it this way. Americans believe that we DO have fundamental human rights, and that democracy is the next step up the ladder in human development. America is about transitioning from the "Power grows from the barrel of a gun" set of thinking to a more "Senatus Populusque Romanus" philosophy, if you follow me. Now, just because Europe has been ruled by the sword for the past thousand years, doesnt mean that there is nothing else left.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is what people don't seem to grasp is that thoughts of democracy and freedom and implementation of them in  a political system is nothing new. We have had all sorts of goverments in Europe - theocratic, democratic, oligocratic.. you name it. After having had a couple of houndred goverment forms you start to realize that perhaps the current government form isnt the final one.

Now of course we get brainwashed in school, just like you do, with how democracy is the greatest thing possible, blah, blah.. but the difference is that we have collectivly been around long enough to realize that it might not be the only truth. Americans havn't. Your system is the only one that you have had and can't really relate to any other system. So you stand firm in your beliefs that the current government form you are having is the ultimate. But don't worry. You'll get your experience with time. The first blow, when your current system fails will be a tough one, but you will learn as everybody else in the world has.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,16:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now of course we get brainwashed in school, just like you do, with how democracy is the greatest thing possible, blah, blah.. but the difference is that we have collectivly been around long enough to realize that it might not be the only truth. Americans havn't. Your system is the only one that you have had and can't really relate to any other system. So you stand firm in your beliefs that the current government form you are having is the ultimate. But don't worry. You'll get your experience with time. The first blow, when your current system fails will be a tough one, but you will learn as everybody else in the world has.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, this isn't the first system we've had here -- Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and the rest of the boys didn't think very much of that one.

While it's true we haven't been around very long, we didn't spring out of a vacuum and design a constitutional republic on a whim.  Why bother slogging through various failed forms of government when you can observe what works and get it right the first time?  Is our system perfect?  No.  "More perfect?"  Absolutely.  

The first "major blow" came about 140 years ago (there have been many since then).  We managed to get through that one, and we're still hangin' in there.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ July 14 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why bother slogging through various failed forms of government when you can observe what works and get it right the first time?<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that there is no such thing as a universally good/bad government form. It all depends on what is fitting for the times. Democracy works right now, but it should not be a holy cow. Times change, society changes and people's priorities change.

In Greece we had democracy between 510 and 430 BC. It worked for a while (during the time of the Athenian dominance) but was replaced later when it didn't work.

My point is that there is nothing that you can "get right the first time". Society evolves and changes and so should and do government forms.

That's why I consider all the talk of being willing to die for freedom to be a heap of rubbish.

[Benze 0]

I think we should have sentry guns from half-life in the airplane. That would be good.

"We are taking over dis plane, capatalist pigdogs!"

WWWWHRRRRRRRR, BEEP, BEEP

"SHIT!"

WHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUMWHUM

::sentry gun beeps, spins around and flashes red light for about 15 seconds, then pops back into ceiling::

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that there is no such thing as a universally good/bad government form. It all depends on what is fitting for the times. Democracy works right now, but it should not be a holy cow. Times change, society changes and people's priorities change.

<snip>

My point is that there is nothing that you can "get right the first time". Society evolves and changes and so should and do government forms.<span id='postcolor'>

You'll never hear me argue that our form of government is perfect and should never change.  We've altered our system before and we'll do so again when it's necessary -- we just don't take changes lightly.  My point is that our system wasn't designed out of naivete, or ignorance of European history.  It was considered to be the best form for the time, and is holding up well so far.

Semper Fi

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ July 14 2002,18:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why bother slogging through various failed forms of government when you can observe what works and get it right the first time?<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that there is no such thing as a universally good/bad government form. It all depends on what is fitting for the times. Democracy works right now, but it should not be a holy cow. Times change, society changes and people's priorities change.

In Greece we had democracy between 510 and 430 BC. It worked for a while (during the time of the Athenian dominance) but was replaced later when it didn't work.

My point is that there is nothing that you can "get right the first time". Society evolves and changes and so should and do government forms.<span id='postcolor'>

somehow this tuned off-topic. but what the heck.

it's correct to say that gov't form will change in time. but question is, "how much of a chance?"

Democracy in ancient Greece was not same as what we have right now. voting power was limited to certain class of ppl, thus excluding many ppl who would have had voting rights under current form of democracy. This means that a few chose for the rest. not today's democracy. despite having all those idiotic results like that of Le Pen almost winning some position, the system at least gives most ppl most chance.

this means that mass can decide what's beneficial for them, whether it's correct or not. but one thing about mass, in its independent form, is that it tends to stay in center of political spectrum. not too right, not too left. although it may deviate from time to time, it isn't so much.

so current form of democracy will stay as long as ppl do not give it up. but what is chance of that? quite small. unless aliens invade and we decide that dictatorship is needed, I'm sure we will stick with what we know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's why I consider all the talk of being willing to die for freedom to be a heap of rubbish.

<span id='postcolor'>

it's person's choice. you want to live? go ahead, you want to fight for freedom? go ahead. you choose your destiny.

[Guest]

bwah. never mind. not worth the effort..

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ July 14 2002,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now back to the subject, I've seen that they are developing guns that will not fire unless they are in the hands of the person they were assigned to. They work with some little ring or something. The air marshalls would be equipped with these, and with the before-mentioned bullets, and then the problem is solved. You have highly trained guys on planes with guns only they can fire. Its all you need.<span id='postcolor'>

26 > Palm print analyzer

[Longinius 1]

But Judges always wear gloves....how could it tell his palmprint?

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

Judge Dredds gun kicks ass.