Ga. governor says guns should be OK in airport

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said Monday that guns should be allowed in public areas of the nation's busiest airport.

And he suggested his own wife might want to pack a firearm for long walks between the parking lot and the terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International.

"If my wife wanted to carry a gun, if she was going from the parking lot, walking from one of those far parking lots to pick up a grandchild or something like that, I think that's a good idea, yes," he said Monday.

Earlier this year, Perdue, a Republican, signed legislation that allows Georgians who have passed criminal background checks to carry concealed weapons onto mass transit, as well as into state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. The new law took effect July 1.

A legal battle quickly erupted over whether the law applies to public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson before travelers pass through security checkpoints.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680821/

[Ian David]

1. And what about carrying guns into the Georgia Governor's Office? n/t

[ulysses]

3. careful - we've got Quick Draw McGraw in office down here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I'm sure the TSA will be happy to go along with that...

[tburnsten]

51. This doesn't affect TSA controlled-areas

It only affects the parts of the airport that are not controlled by hard security, like the parking lot and entrance way. Why would it make a difference anyway, if someone plans on shooting someone else at the airport do you think TSA regs would stop them? Again it does not extend to the area past the security checkpoints.

[Love Bug]

4. Great -- I can't bring a 4 oz bottle of shampoo on a plane and this

clown wants people to be able to pack heat in the airport.

[nyy1998]

10. That was exactly what I was thinking

I can't think of a single American airport that has any crime problem. The neighborhood around the airport may be a bit sketchy but the airport itself is really safe. Perdue is just an idiot.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Having had to pick people up and drop them off at the airport,

perhaps I can articulate the problem. I normally carry, at all times. If I get a call from a friend or my mother that needs a ride from the airport, I may not be able to go pick them up from the airport, without first going home and storing the weapon. No, I'm not likely to be discovered, but if something odd happens, I don't want to be 'that guy' that was at the airport, in the parking or pickup area, with a firearm.

This removes one of those 'zones' you can't go when carrying concealed. It has nothing to do with getting on an airplane.

[aspergris]

71. SO what?

Guns are not prohibited by federal law in NON-secured areas of the airport. Why should we surrender our constitutional rights at a non-secured area of tha airport. secured is different since everybody goes thru a checkpoint

[Anexio]

140. Nice logic

So, just because you can't "think" of airport that has security issues then therefore there isn't a security issue. Be careful who you are calling an idiot.

Just because you want to stick your head in the sand and be irresponsible doesn't mean I have to. Personally I don't carry a gun but I do carry an array of non-lethal weapons to defend myself, especially in parking garages. My wife does too. After we are safely in the airport and we are checking our luggage we will put our weapons in the luggage and high tail it to the security checkpoint and get our butts in the terminal.

Come down to Miami International sometime and I'd be glad to give you a tour of the wonderful parking facilities. We can start at the parking garage booth where you pay to get out. Notice the thick Plexiglas? As we drive further you'll want to take notice the chain-link fence with razor wire on the top that surrounds many of the car rental places.

You're clueless if you think there aren't security issues in American airports.

http://cbs5.com/crime/parking.lot.death.2.785263.html

[slackmaster]

36. You can carry any size bottle of shampoo in the public areas of airports

Apples, meet oranges.

[SteveM]

53. I have and will continue to "pack heat" in an airport. It's legal (nt)

[Dimensio0]

80. I fail to see how your situation is analagous.

You are free to bring a 4oz bottle of shampoo into a non-secured section of an airport. The non-secured section of an airport is the only valid frame of reference; comparisons to prohibited items within secured areas of an airport or on an airplane itself are not valid.

[Longtooth]

87. Your 4 oz bottle has nothing to do with it. We're talking about the UNSECURED

portion of the airport. It is still a felony take the gun past the security checkpoint.

[Redstone]

5. Oh, fuck. Just when my headache had started to fade, you brought it back. Or, rather,

that imbecilic governor brought it back; all you did was report his imbecility. So no fault on your part.

Redstone

[Hugabear]

6. Fucking gun nuts won't be happy until everyone is packing heat everywhere

They want guns in schools, guns in airports, guns on planes, guns every-fucking-where. Hell, why not let inmates carry guns? Shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves in their own cells? :sarcasm:

[SteveM]

54. See #47 below. You already have guns in airports. You haven't noticed (nt)

[Longtooth]

88. Just what is wrong with a good person being prepared for a bad situation?

[Hugabear]

108. Well then. Let's allow guns everywhere, shall we?

What is wrong with "a good person being prepared for a bad situation"? How about the fact that you have armed police and security guards already in airports? Why do you need to have civilians carrying guns in such a place?

Hell, why not allow everyone to carry a loaded gun onto a plane? Maybe we should let people carry guns into Congress, the White House, or any other government building. Why not allow 18-yr olds to carry guns to school? After all, they're adults, so they should have that right.

[Real_Talk]

110. agreed

I actually agree that an 18 year old should be able to carry. If you are an adult, then you are an adult.
I also think you should be able to carry to those other places, they should just have lock boxes where you can leave your weapon at the door.

In Vermont they have signs at the court house which ask you to leave your weapon with the deputies, no big deal.

[Longtooth]

112. Odd how you didn't answer my question. Only responded with hyperbole

[Hugabear]

113. Actually I did answer your question

There are armed policemen and security guards in airports all over the country. Not sure if they still have National Guard troops or not, it's been quite awhile since I've flown. Nevertheless, there is quite the armed presence in airports should there be a need for that.

Let me ask you this. You're in an airport, and some madman pulls out a gun. The police would only have seconds to take action. You, as a concerned citizen, pull out YOUR gun to take on the madman. How are the police to know that you're just a concerned CCW permit holder? Your actions are more likely to get even more people hurt or killed than if you had just let the police and security guards do their job.

[Longtooth]

114. You talk around my question, you did not answer it. The question is. .

Just what is wrong with a good person being prepared for a bad situation?

To discuss how police may be present is irrelevant to the above question.

[Dimensio0]

115. If your concern is valid, you should be able to provide examples of it having occurred already.

Please do so.

[Longtooth]

123. He can't. Concealed firearms have been allowed in the unsecured

part of airports in Texas since 1995. Never herd of an incident. This is a solution looking for a problem.

[ManiacJoe]

130. A valid concern, but it is a very common situation.

The police almost always arrive late and have no idea who the Good Guys and Bad Guys are. Inside the airport and outside, this gets handled the same way. The cops take everyone down at gun point, handcuff everyone, and sort out the mess at their leisure. The Good Guys get released; the Bad Guys go to jail.

[Callisto32]

132. Police ARE civilians.....

[Anexio]

141. You hit that nail right on the head....

Guns in prison...nice!

Maybe all the drug dealing pedophiles could kill each other? Is that what you're insinuating?

Paint It Black, let me paint this for you, we gun nuts just want to be able to protect ourselves and our families if or when the time comes.

And guess what, if the situation warranted it, one of us gun nuts would defend your naive self-centered life. Don't knock it until you have some first hand knowledge.

[scarface2004]

7. how frickin scared are you!!!!

jesus fucking christ...enough with the fucking guns already!!!!

[slackmaster]

41. I have met many people who have concealed weapons permits

Every one of them had what I considered to be a good reason for getting the permit.

But your opinion or mine of other peoples' needs is not important. People who have permits have gone through a screening process. In many states they are required to have training. The manner and circumstances under which they can carry weapons are highly regulated. They do not present a danger to the rest of us.

Some of them are scared of very real things like stalkers, or of robbers who may know that they work as couriers of cash or other valuables.

[SteveM]

49. How scared are you? Please see post #47 below...

Most airports CANNOT be "gun-free" as airlines allow the transport of guns NOW. I've checked a number of airports, and where one is already free of local gun-ban laws (most areas of the country), one can take a gun into airport parking, airport terminals, airport ticket counters, airport baggage carousels. The gun is checked in and transferred (in a lock-box) via stowed luggage.

I have carried a 5-foot lock box with a rifle in it and hundreds of "scared"(?) folks never noticed. So how will they notice if I slip a .38 into my pocket? How scared are you?

[Longtooth]

89. No, it is MY civil liberty. You don't have to carry if you don't want to

but you cannot IMPOSE your will on MY civil liberty.

[defendandprotect]

8. Well, if I can have a gun, why can't I have a taser . . . ?????

Shouldn't everyone now have a taser . . . maybe a bow and arrow, as well?

How about mini-nuke weapons?

Just in case a tank gets in my way as I'm walking down the street ... !!!

[global1]

11. Nuclear Weapons Don't Kill People - People Kill People.....

If we take the NRA's position of 'guns don't kill people - people kill people' and apply it to nuclear weapons - then maybe it's ok if Iran goes nuclear.

If everybody had a gun .....

If every country was nuclear.....

Hmmmmm.....

[Bake]

45. Reductio ad absurdum.

Mini-nukes? Logical fallacy.

Bake

[defendandprotect]

61. Tell me you know that the Bush family loves small-nukes . .. ?

[tburnsten]

52. You can have a taser

or a bow and arrow, you just have to go buy one. What are you rambling about anyway?

[defendandprotect]

62. If every American can have a taser -- then why a gun?

[tburnsten]

64. Why does it matter?

And also, I'm not sure if electric pain compliance devices are protected the same way that personal arms are, and besides, the second amendment is not about crime control.

[defendandprotect]

73. Why? Because a gun would be deadlier . . .

Are you saying that if you have a taser for the purpose of protecting yourself that you are
not "armed" . . . ?

[tburnsten]

83. Sure you are

You are armed, just with a pain compliance device, which only works so long as the current is being applied, and leaving you shit out of luck should there be two assailaints. I am not a cop, I am not being paid to risk my life for the safety of my attacker, I am not going to wrestle with someone after I zap them. Tasers are highly effective for officers who have the luxury of having backup to help them restrain the person they had to taser, as well as handcuffs. I have neither, so for me, a taser isn't going to be a very effective tool. And if tasers are so great, how come officers responding to lethal force threats don't use them? Is it because pistols are more effective and have greater reach? Also, I don't know about you but I can't afford to spend thirty dollars for every two rounds of practice fire, I much prefer being able to practice for $20 or less per 50 rounds. Again, I don't have the same luxuries of an officer, like public funding.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. I don't believe in using 'less lethal' lethal force in self defense. NT

[defendandprotect]

74. Right . . . shoot their heads off . . . and then find out what it was all about . .. ?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Shoot whose head off?

What are you imagining here?

I can't really envision any situation where I would be justified in using a taser, where I would not be justified in using lethal force. Tasers are not nearly as reliable as a firearm. For the purposes of self defence in the face of potential deadly harm, I see no reason to step down to a taser, from a firearm. That's all I was commenting on.

If I was in the business of apprehending people, in the service of our legal system, I might very well need such a 'less lethal' tool. But as I am not, I think it has been adequately demonstrated that Tasers can kill, and the use of one on another human would probably require as much justification as a firearm. That doesn't make me too interested in accepting the safety tradeoff of a 2 shot, hopefully incapacitating weapon, over a 15+1 plus 2 reloads firearm.

Neither firearms, nor tasers are to be used lightly. You are using a weapon against a human. Tasers are not made by Nerf. They are not toys.

[defendandprotect]

76. And what I was saying was don't go lightly and then find out what's going on . . .

go for the kill right away . . . ???

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Not at all.

Pointing a gun at someone who has in some way demonstrated an intent to harm you physically is a deterrence all it's own. A verbal warning is a bonus. If they press the issue, then you should do what you feel is necessary to protect yourself.

Same procedure as a Taser I imagine. Only I would estimate your odds of success being much higher with a firearm.


Can you imagine a situtation where you would be justified in tasering someone in self defense, where you would not be justified in at least drawing, if not firing a firearm? A situation where sheer survival was not at stake? I cannot.

[defendandprotect]

78. You're avoiding the issue of admitting that you prefer deadly force --

there's probably not enough deadly force in the world to satiate people who feel as you do.

[Dimensio0]

81. Do you have any rational argument to offer?

Thus far your argument appears to be based entirely upon hyperbole. Do you have any statements of substance to suggest? For example, can you provide a response to the inquiry already made of you, regarding a situation where a taser would be an acceptable device to use against an assailant yet a firearm would not?

[AtheistCrusader]

84. A Taser is potentially deadly.

It is a weapon. Once again, I can envision no scenario where I would be justified in using a Taser, where I would not also be justified in drawing, and possibly using, a firearm. Can you?

If you are justified in using a firearm or a Taser, you or someone you are trying to protect must be in danger, yes?

If my life is in danger, why would I settle for a 2 shot incapacitating weapon that may not be effective, for dozens and dozens of reasons? I am not a police officer, so I have no need for a 'compliance tool'. I take the protection of human life very seriously. That's why I carry a CPR mask, some basic trauma and first aid equipment, search and rescue equipment in my truck, and I keep my training and certifications up to date. I will not settle for a 'hopefully effective' weapon with the trade-offs of a Taser, over a firearm. Human life is entirely too valuable to me to risk that.

[NewMoonTherian]

142. I think I see where you're missing each other.

Your concern is that, given the option, a person may use lethal force when it isn't necessary, or before being able to make a reasonable assessment of the situation. You feel that, given a taser rather than a firearm, unjustified use of force is less likely to end in death.

Atheist's concern(and mine) is that, faced with a legitimate threat to one's life, a taser isn't sufficient to neutralize that threat. Atheist also illustrates that having a firearm provides the chance to verbally and visually warn an attacker(non-lethal threat resolution) while still allowing for the use of lethal force if necessary.

This isn't an easy issue to settle, and it's ultimately the responsibility of a given individual to decide for himself.

There may be options no one here has considered yet. If a taser(or your "humane" defense of choice) is compact enough, maybe both could be carried.

In answer to your title remark, I do prefer deadly force(the option of deadly force). I'm willing to risk killing a violent but non-deadly attacker, in defense of myself and my family.

[Longtooth]

91. When left without a logical argument. . .Talk in hyperbole. Yeah that'll work.

[defendandprotect]

97. The logical argument --- would be to use the least force necessary to protect yourself . . .

unless you are paranoid.

As long as we have patriarchal thinking we will have increasing violence on the planet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. Spoken by someone who has obviously never defended himself/herself.

You do realize that if you don't use enough force you are likely going to be seriously injured or killed, don't you? So yes if I am threatened with serious injury and/or death I will respond with the force I determine necessary to eliminate that threat. If I'm going to air on any side it will be on the side that saves my life, more force rather than less force.

David

[defendandprotect]

99. You're making an extremist argument ---

which is the point of the NRA and patriarchy ---

perfect together!

The constant arugment is for a more violent America ---

and they're certainly delivering it . . !!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Just countering an idiotic argument.

You do not respond to lethal force with less than lethal force, that is my only point. If it is an extremist one then so be it.

David

[defendandprotect]

104. What you have is extremist fears . .. that's all. And that's patriarchy--!!!

You're making the same arguments that the neo-cons make re "national security" and

pre-emptive attacks.

How can you miss seeing that --- ???

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Callisto32]

135. This has Nothing to do with pre-emption.

The analogy is poor. We are talking about situations where you are sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are under attack. It is akin to an armed force marching across your boarder, not running exercises 30 miles from it.

[Real_Talk]

101. partriarchy

What is more patriarchal than telling other people how they should best control/defend their own life?

Please explain how the mere choice of armed self defense supports the patriarchy's goals? When you think about it, wouldn't a completely unarmed society serve to make most women more dependent on men? If we are reduced to only hands and teeth, most women are at an even greater disadvantage, are they not?

[defendandprotect]

105. We are having a debate/discussion NOT passing legislation . . . !!

...and again, just more evidence of extremeist thinking --- !!!

Patriarchy is about violence ---

It is patriarchy which is the threat to women . . .

and you're suggesting that patriarchy "protects" women . . . ???

And, still, over and again, all of your imaginings are about violence directed at you.

Do you not see the confusion and paranoia in this---?

[Real_Talk]

107. Your answer is

not responsive to my post. I think you may have clicked reply by accident. I am curious about the questions you ask, you write about confusion and paranoia, but you are the one who seems sure that honest armed citizens will lead to mayhem. Who is paranoid, really?


I do worry about myself because I know enough about the world to know that sometimes you can only count on yourself. Do you disagree?

[defendandprotect]

116. Are you saying that you think that guns will improve society . . .communities . . ?

Police certainly don't think so --

Now . . . about yourself . . . how many people have attacked you physically in the last decade -- ?

What I'm trying to point out to you is that the patriarchy stays in business by creating FEAR ---

the TV has been doing their dirty work for them for more than 3 decades now --

so has printed media.

The NRA isn't interested in bringing us more peaceful communities ---

they are interested in selling guns ---

Do you think PEACE sells guns?

[tburnsten]

118. What "patriarchy"?

You sound like you are talking about 'Zionists', it sounds very similiar to those who were warning about them in the last century. What is the "patriarchy"? And there are many peaceful uses for guns. I committed many peaceful acts with a gun yesterday afternoon, unless you happen to be the poland spring bottles I was dispatching.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. What 'police'?

I know no less than 7 personally, and ALL of them advocate not only private firearm ownership, but Concealed Carry as well.


Why did you suddenly stop responding to me in post #102?

[tburnsten]

121. Same here

Our police (ALL of them) are heavily in favor of civilian gun ownership.

[Real_Talk]

126. I don't make a good target

I am careful where and when I go. Although I am from one of the more dangerous cities in the USA, I have not been physically attacked in some time, It helps to be a large physically powerful male in that regard. Of late I have been been threatened and followed through the streets in the wee hours, I have also come across some guys breaking into cars in front of my home. I was able to escape those situation's unharmed and without using a weapon, but I like to have the option, I might not be as lucky next time.

[tburnsten]

111. You need to read the post

You didn't reply to anything he said, he was saying that it is more patriarchal to tell people how they may protect themselves and nitpick their ability to do so into oblivion than it is to allow people to protect their own lives, especially considering that the police and government are under zero obligation to protect anyone from anything.

[defendandprotect]

117. Isn't he "telling" us how to protect ourselves . . . i.e., with guns...???

I think you need to do some re-reading . . .

and the use of the word "allow" again suggests hyper-overreaction to this discussion . . .

No one is preventing anyone from doing anything ---

You are quite oversensitive to even discussion of this issue ...

So -- how does that work when you are carrying a weapon --- ????????

[tburnsten]

119. Aboslutely not

No one is telling anyone to use guns. What we are saying is that it is not your place or anyone else's to try and deny people the right to own and use the most effective means of defense available, not counting the secret service. And the sensitivity comes from twenty or thirty years of anti-gun bias in most all mainstream culture, despite the fact that there is nothing at all wrong with owning firearms and using them in peaceful ways. There is also nothing wrong with defending the lives of yourself and your loved ones, and there is no real reason why the two cannot intersect.

[defendandprotect]

122. Let's get back to the question of extremism . . . and your post is an example of it . . .

Again . . . the odd use of the word "deny" . . .

who is "denying" you anything --- ??

this is a discussion . . . a debate . . .

not a law-making session.

Our culture is naturally, of course, anti-gun in civilized societies ---

And, again, you repeat the hyper-fear that suggests that probably we would all

be better off without guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I was not aware the Swiss were uncivilized.

Pretty broad brush you've got there.

[tburnsten]

127. Guns= uncivilized

Another stunning example of anti-gunner's attempts to de-humanize people who like to shoot.

[defendandprotect]

128. "People who like to shoot" . . . are preyed upon . . . ???

:eyes:



OK -- "those people who like to shoot" ---

discussions aren't beneficial -- you're in a circle of violence ---

and I leave you there.

[tburnsten]

129. I'm in a circle of violence?

Sorry dude, I didn't think enjoying recreational shooting placed me in a "circle of violence". And I also keep a shotgun for pesky drug addicts, should any attempt to break in while we are home. I live in the worst neighborhood of a beautiful small city, and I realize I may have had a couple close calls before. I'll leave you to your carefully groomed reality that leaves no room for people owning guns, without being violent people.

[Callisto32]

136. I ask you,

What could possibly be more civilized than taking a weapon of war, and refining it to a beautifully engineered and constructed tool with which to play a game. Football (either meaning) is quite a measure less civilized than a round of trap.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Strawman.

Paranoia isn't the driver for choosing a firearm over a Taser in this kind of situation. Tasers are not very effective compared to a firearm. Hence, the reason a Police Officer will respond with a firearm, not a Taser, if someone ATTACKS him or her. An Officer may use the Taser to enforce compliance in someone standing there with a knife, ranting and raving, but the Officer is going to draw his or her gun if that person charges and attacks. They have entire policies and training courses on when and how to use a Taser, and when to use a firearm. I suspect that NONE of the scenarios that would justify using a Taser and NOT a firearm, would apply to non-law-enforcement. It is not my function in society to apprehend people, only to protect myself, and others, if I so choose.

Tasers are potentially lethal force, but they are also not very effective against an actively hostile person. You get two shots, and a TRANSITORY in-capacitative effect. When you stop applying voltage, they can get right back up. Clothing can interfere with the darts. If the subject thrashes around on the ground enough, the darts may come out. You can only effectively deal with a single attacker. None of these risks are present, if you use a firearm of sufficient caliber, and capacity.


I don't advocate killing people if you don't have to. I never have, and never will. Please stop constructing these strawman arguments. If you really want to understand how a Taser works, and what it is like to be hit with one, you have options available to you. For instance, some police departments will offer a Citizens Academy where you can ride along with an Officer, see some of their training, use their firing range, and probably request they use a Taser on you. If that isn't available (Sometimes it isn't due to budget) a Taser Co. rep may be able to arrange a demonstration.

If you feel a Taser is all you need for self defense (or nothing, that's fine, that's your choice too), I won't question it. But do not presume to tell ME what is adequate for MY own self defense. I have been a CPL holder for 8 years. I train regularly. I have never had to use my firearm in self defense, not once. I'll be die perfectly happy someday if I can maintain that track record, but I WILL remain ready, and I reject your alarmist theories as nothing more than counter-productive hysteria. I will ignore the implied insult.

[Longtooth]

103. No when your (or aloved ones) life is on the line you use the MOST effective means

[beevul]

109. You sure are confused.

Perhaps you can interject into this debate, the difference between the threat of deadly force - pointing a gun at an attacker, versus actually USING deadly force - pointing a gun at an attacker and pulling the trigger...if you are able to see the difference, that is.

[Callisto32]

134. I'm going to repeat myself.

Have you ever fought for your life? I know what it feels like to be in a situation where you have no idea how long your life is going to last. When your life is in danger, your only goal is to neutralize that threat. That does NOT necessarily mean to kill the assailant, should it be another human being. You will attempt to foil, injure, knock unconscious, kill, whatever the heck you can do to end the threat. That is not "patriarchal thinking," that is instinctual, biological thinking; and it is good for the species. Fight or flight is a heck of a strong response in non-life-threatening situations. In life-threatening situations, it goes past that, rounds the bend where insanity lies and comes back home to clear thinking and planning for a very specific goal. In this place you will use whatever tools you have. You are not worrying about deescalating the situation, you are worried about making that situation STOP, NOW.

Point: using the least force necessary is the last thing on your mind. Those terms are fully alien during a life and death struggle. I hope you never personally have to find out......

If you can stop it before lethal force is necessary, you will. This is why all that is generally required is for a person to present the weapon to stop an attack. If a person continues to advance upon someone who is obviously armed, it should be apparent that the assailant does not have that person's well-being in mind, quite the opposite.

Predators, which is what the kind of people who attack others are, are frequently out muscled by their prey. Just because you are armed, does not mean you are looking for trouble. The spines of a puffer-fish are not for show.....

Also, making a sexist comment does nothing to further an argument and simply harms your future credibility.

[Callisto32]

133. If you shoot someone

you had better be damn good and sure that that person is an immediate threat to your life or greater physical well-being. What is with this idea that you shoot first and ask questions later? The vast majority of the population is equipped with what is call a conscience, part of which is a strong aversion against causing physical harm and especially death to other people and, for the great majority of that majority, also to animals. Ever swatted a fly and then felt remorse? I have. What leads you to believe that such a drive scaled up to the level of human life can be so easily overridden by most people. Sure, some people are like that. They are called sociopaths, and they comprise a pretty small percentage of the general population. </rant>

[Longtooth]

90. Because guns are better

at stopping people from doing very bad things. Why are you apposed to stopping people from doing very bad things?

[onehandle]

9. How about just having military all over the airport with machine guns like they have in Europe?

Of course not. That would cost money. And Republicans don't give a shit about protecting us, they just want to pander to their TOOTHLESS TRAILER PARK, GUN LOVIN', WAL-MART SHOPPIN' BASE OF SUCKERS.

god I hate sonny.

[SteveM]

43. Do you serve watermelon with your stereotypes? (nt)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

68. Did you fly soon after 9/11/01?

Military all over the airports, National Guard mostly, M9's, M16's (presumably machine guns).

I don't know if they were loaded, didn't ask.

Nice stereotype of people who shop at Walmart, or live in a trailer park, or own guns.

[ManiacJoe]

131. All the ones I saw were unloaded.

None of the weapons had magazines in them.

It was obvious to me that they were there for show only.

[Longtooth]

92. Because that is not the issue: And please, stop the hate.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. SeaTac International has a Morgue, and an Armory.

At one point the Morgue served as both. What do you think they keep in the Armory?

Fly happy, and think happy thoughts! There are men behind those doors you can't go through, waiting to protect you. :D

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

12. In the long run, my local airport would be better off if I carried a gun.

But, since I don't fly, I never go to the airport.

I could probably save someone's life, though, if anything ever came up.

[LeftyMom]

17. They're probably hiring rent-a-cops.

But mostly they just stand around looking bored, because nothing really happens.

[spin]

60. I've often watched rent-a-cops qualify with firearms...

at the range I used to shoot at.

Some were good shooters, but many had a hard time qualifying. I determined that if I ever seen one draw his weapon, I would seek cover even if I were behind him.

I was once in the line of fire when four police officers drew down on a suspect. It wasn't a pleasant moment.

[bluebloodwarrior]

13. There are enough police officers in air

Why in the world would anyone feel compelled to defend himself/herself in an area that is always crowded and is guarded by nymerous security guards and police officers?
Beats me.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

15. A 40 billion dollar defense system didn't stop a small number of Saudis with box knives.

Why just rely on a few dumb guards and officers?

[provis99]

21. so the answer is rely on even more idiotic gun-totin' passengers?

Gun nut logic is in a class all of its own.

[slackmaster]

40. Speaking of idiotic responses and poor logic...

Nobody is talking about allowing passengers to carry weapons onboard airplanes.

[SteveM]

44. Well, that's what happens when beliefs go unchallenged...

Instead, post in GD instead of Forums: Guns, then your pet animosities and untruths can go unchallenged; a veritable orgy of ignorance. The culture wars never end....

[Callisto32]

138. Strawman. Ad hominem abusive. Steroetyping.

[toopers]

26. There are no security officers in the parking deck . . .

the issue is not really about the terminal, but getting to and from your car to the terminal (for instance when you are meeting someone to pick them up). And of course, historically, the APD has been putting their "problem cops" on patrol at the airport.

[Longtooth]

93. This issue has nothing to do with in the air. Only the unsecured

portion of the airport.

[Callisto32]

137. "Why in the world would anybody feel compelled to defend himself/herself.."

A little instinct called "self-preservation." Defending oneself takes many forms. Tell me would you feel compelled to take cover in a nasty situation in such an area, even if the only cover available was lying flat on the floor.....I thought so. It is the same drive, manifest in a different form.

[LeftyMom]

14. Is he saying they can't even police the goddamn airport parking lot?

Now I've flown in and out of Atlanta once and changed planes there a few more times, and other than the killer humidity and the uncomfortable seats at the gate, I must have missed all of the mortal peril.

[slackmaster]

39. See how much responsibility the security people accept at ANY airport parking lot

If your car is stolen from one.

[DBoon]

16. It's the "looking out for number one" society

No "socialized medicine", buy your own damn health care. You get sick - it's your own fault

Your home is being foreclosed - to bad, your own fault

You want protection - pack heat and shoot anything that threatens you. Only a wimp-commie-liberal would expect the government to protect them

Sounds more and more like Somalia every day

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. I have been to a few places where you could carry a gun at the airport

And they were all in Africa or Central Asia, and people carried guns because they were afraid of being robbed by security - kinda puts our place in the world in perspective doesn't it.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

19. It sure does put it in perspective.

And I am beginning to fear my government in the same way.

[spag68]

20. How about

schools and hospitals, we know they have them in churches,out there in Colorado. Look how that worked out. Man for such beautiful states, the south sure raises some wild people.

[beevul]

69. "Look how that worked out."

"...we know they have them in churches,out there in Colorado. Look how that worked out."


Yes. We do.

Guard saved untold lives, Colorado authorities say AP

“I give the credit to God,” the church security officer Jeanne Assam said.
The security officer stopped gunman Matthew Murray, who killed four in a 12-hour rampage at two religious facilities.

By Nicholas Riccardi and DeeDee Correll, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 11, 2007



COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. -- The gunshots were so loud that Jeanne Assam thought the shooter was already in the building.

A former police officer, Assam, 42, was on security duty Sunday morning at New Life Church here. Hours earlier, a 24-year-old who had been rejected from a missionary school in a Denver suburb had shot and killed two staffers there. Now he was spraying New Life's parking lot with gunfire and pushing through the doors to the sanctuary.

Assam hid and inched toward the gunman, Matthew Murray, as dozens of terrified worshipers fled. She waited until he got close enough, revealed herself, aimed her pistol and fired. Murray dropped to the ground. He was carrying an assault rifle, two pistols and a backpack holding more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shoot11dec11,1,7117244.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[Erebus67]

22. sheesh

"they just want to pander to their TOOTHLESS TRAILER PARK, GUN LOVIN', WAL-MART SHOPPIN' BASE OF SUCKERS."

This kinda language doesn't help. Unless you're trying to push moderate gun owners to the other side. I'm a gun owner and I can tell you there are some real hard core right wingers but there are ALOT of moderate gun owners. The type that are Democrats but don't want to have their guns taken away. The kind that don't speak out much but most of them vote. And they know which party would be the one to take their 2nd Amendment Right away. Phrases like the above don't help to dispel their fears, in fact quite the contrary.

[comtec]

23. if you don't fit the bill then what's your issue?

this is a place for people to vent.
it's these exact kind of red neak morans that are electing these evil bastards because they give the voter a lolly pop and "gun rights" TM. They are slick talkers that lie so vociferously that it puts to shame many of the old time politicians from the guiled age.
it's not the right to a well armed militia, or even hunting riffles, hell not even all the unreasonable small arms and full automatics that bothers us, it's the mind set of people who drool and gun hump that scare the fuck out of us!
these are not mentally healthy individuals,. There are plenty of responsible gun owners. most are responsible. but the RW seems to really pander to the gun humpers, and the rest seem to follow.
I mean seriously, do you think the RW is going to let you keep your guns, AND buy ammo when thy decide to take over ni an even more obvious way?
"Well we aint got no mor elections, but we gots our gunz, so da gov'ment must be ok".

besides guns have always been a rich man's game. the toothless walmart-er generally can't afford a gun... well at least in the past that was true. now any kid with 6 months of allowance can get one I suppose. and that's the problem.

we're becoming a country of barbarians!

people like to say "who cares 'bout the rest of da world n wat dey tink of us"... but we should. we trade with those people, those people HOLD OUR DEBT!

having a gun doesn't matter when the government has body armor (generally illegal for you to own in many states) and tanks (very illegal for you to own with certain exceptions), and combat air craft (see tank owners). When they come, your pop guns won't matter one whit. If you arent' defending the more important parts of the constitution, you ARE one of them!

so yes there are lots of responsible gun owners. I would think a responsible gun owner would not think an airport which i filled with innocents, and especially children, which is also always crowded and packed, is a good place for re-makes of the shoot out at the O.K. corral.

[spin]

67. Boy was that a rant...

I hope you feel better after venting.

You say:

it's these exact kind of red neak morans that are electing these evil bastards because they give the voter a lolly pop and "gun rights" TM. They are slick talkers that lie so vociferously that it puts to shame many of the old time politicians from the guiled age.
it's not the right to a well armed militia, or even hunting riffles, hell not even all the unreasonable small arms and full automatics that bothers us, it's the mind set of people who drool and gun hump that scare the fuck out of us!

But then you say:
There are plenty of responsible gun owners. most are responsible.

So you must feel that the minority of gun owners who you describe as "red neak morans" must number enough to elect "evil bastards". Perhaps the responsible gun owners fail the take the responsibility of voting seriously. (By the way I believe you meant red neck morons not red neak morans, but I think I who am I to complain about spelling and grammar.)

The gun culture is very diverse and of course some gun owners fit your statement. But you may not realize that many are very well educated and work in professional environments. I've known doctors, engineers, ministers, bankers, business owners, nurses and technicians who enjoyed shooting and had concealed carry permits. True, most were Republican because they opposed draconian gun restrictions that were promoted by the Democratic Party.

Times are changing. The Democratic Party appears to have dropped its stance on extreme gun control measures. The recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm ownership should help reassure gun owners that gun confiscation is unlikely. Many gun owners will now find the Democratic Party an attractive alternative to the Republican Party after the last eight years. It should be more difficult for the "evil bastards" to get elected.

The question of an angry group of gun owners being capable of overthrowing a corrupt and dictatorial government is one which I've often pondered. First let me say that our political system is by far the best way to effect change. Any organized uprising would probably fail even when you consider that some of the rebels would be well armed and extremely well trained by our military. Of course, the police and the military would be hesitant to enforce unreasonable measures against citizens who have views similar to theirs. The violence and disruption to society might well prove a deterrent to the people who desire to replace our representative democracy with a dictatorship. If a dictatorship does succeed, it probably will come about in a very subtle way over a long period of time. Sometimes I wonder if we are in this process right now.

As far as people carrying weapons in an airport, let me point out that the area of the airport where you can't carry weapons is the sterile area. People travel to and from the airport and in many states possessing a weapon as long as you have a concealed permit and do not enter the sterile area is not illegal.

[Solly Mack]

24. My family keeps wondering if I'll ever move back

I don't.

[paparush]

32. Solly - May I ask, where you are living?

My wife and son have spent all of June and July in Scotland and England (while I stayed here in the States working). They both say they are ready to move there. I've been doing some preliminary digging.

Do you live overseas?

[Solly Mack]

34. I live in Germany - but I meant back to Georgia.

Been living here since '04 and we're hoping to remain here after retirement. Primarily because we just love it. I've never been so relaxed. Sure, it's not perfect and yes, it's got its own problems...but I love it here.

Good luck on whatever y'all decide!

[cullen2382]

25. I've talked to my local police about this law

They are incredibly upset. They said it will never last, but the sad thing is it's going to take the police shooting a few innocent people that are now carrying guns around on them wherever they like in order for the law to be revoked. It's just a matter of time.

[tburnsten]

55. Do your local officers shoot on sight?

It sounds like what you are expecting is for several incidents of officers noticing a firearm and instead of following their training, shooting immediately. That is called murder, and would not be the carrier's fault at all.

[SteveM]

57. You realize that civilians carry guns in airports NOW? Daily?...

They are checked in at the ticket counter and picked up at the carousel. Where are the shootings? Do you have any examples of shootings of civilians who have carried or are now carrying guns at airports?

[cullen2382]

79. It's not just at airports

It's everywhere, on Marta, in restaurants and bars (gonna go get drunk? Don't forget your gun). There's also a law passed here a while back that gives you permission to shoot someone if you "feel threatened" in any way. You really don't think these laws are a volatile mix?

[SteveM]

85. Not if we look at Vermont as an example...

While my wonderful, forward-thinking, liberal-minded state of Texas does not allow guns in establishments which serve alcohol, Vermont doesn't even address the subject. They don't even have a law addressing concealed carry. If you go to a bar and slip a .38 in your pocket, the State of Vermont has no interest. What you do with that gun (in a bar or anywhere else) WILL interest it. I don't know of the law "passed here a while back", but the main thing to look for is whether or not there is a demonstrated public problem with a law or lack thereof. When living in Arlington, VA a while back, I went to a bar and saw off-duty cops drinking beer and shooting pool. No one seemed to mind.

Vermont's violent crime rate is low.

[Dimensio0]

82. Do the individuals making such claims have factual evidence?

For example, many states already allow the carrying of concealed deadly weapons in unsecured areas of airports. Can the police who have expressed such concerns to you provide examples of innocent people being shot in such states?

[Speaker]

27. I carry my gun into D/FW regularly.

As long as I am outside the area of the metal detectors (baggage, etc.) it is perfectly legal.

We haven't had any mass shootings at D/FW.

Those happen at LAX, where they have strict gun control.

[nyy1998]

30. When was this?

When did LAX have a shitshow of people start shooting at each other? As much as I hate flying into LAX(one of the worse large airports in the USA IMO), I still feel pretty safe there.

[slackmaster]

38. The most recent shooting in a US airport was at LAX on July 4, 2002

At the El Al ticket counter.

http://www.firehouse.com/frontlines/news/02/0704.html

The shooter did not have a concealed-weapons permit.

[SteveM]

47. Most airlines require guns be checked in. At the airport...

Typically, you must present your firearm, demonstrate it is unloaded, and place the firearm unloaded in a your lock box and NOT your carry-on luggage (with cartridges kept in the original packing and stored separately). Then you go through security. Upon arrival at your destination, the firearm (if it is a long gun) may be picked up at a separate window instead of on a carousel.

In other words, it is already legal to carry firearms into most airport parking lots, terminals, ticket counters, luggage area. In Austin, Texas (which has no shortage of "gun-free" signs posted in various government/school district buildings) Austin-Bergstrom International Airport allows guns in a locked case to be carried right into the terminal for check-in. This is different from wearing a loaded gun in these areas; but if most people are unaware of a rifle in a 5-foot case being toted by them, how will they notice a .38 in a pocket?

A lot of sound & fury over very little.

[Real_Talk]

59. Feelings

are the common denominator amongst the gun grabbers. "I feel this and I feel that", they all say. Your subjectively feeling safe has nothing to do with objective reality or rights. Get over yourself gun grabbers, the whole world should not have to be bound by what makes you scared.

The only people that the law stops now are people who respect the law in the first place. The boogie man you are all worried about has not been stopped by the law and will not be stopped by the law going forward. Last I checked, one does not have to go through security to walk into the airport, as things stand, you or I can carry whatever we want unmolested into the airport.

[AlinPA]

139. Even the Supreme Court led by conservatives states that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.

People should read:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Am I a "Gun Grabber" because I agree with the SC ruling which has this caveat built in?

[xchrom]

28. kick -- i fuckin hate this gun insanity.

[SteveM]

48. See my #47. What's the big deal? (nt)

[Longtooth]

94. Please stop the hate.

[Algorem]

29. I never heard of nobody hijacking a jetliner from a Taliban airport.

Cause they got plenty of guns.

[nyy1998]

31. There was an Air India flight that was hijacked and

sent to Kabul because the Taliban were friendly with the Pakistani terrorists. It made it difficult for the Indian government to attempt any rescue mission because all the terrorist on the plane had guns and they had the Taliban guard the Airport from any Indian rescue groups.

[paparush]

33. This Just In - GA Governor Dumber than a Bag of Hammers nt

[S_B_Jackson]

35. I fail to see the big issue here...

in many states, those holding concealed carry permits may enter airports and move about in the non-secured areas of the terminal. Secured areas - meaning all areas which you must pass through a TSA security checkpoint to access - would remain off-limits.

[aspergris]

72. Stop using logic

anti-gunners are allergic

[NC_Nurse]

37. Sonny Perdue = Asshat

Didn't he pray for rain last year? How'd that turn out? Has he built an ark yet?

[raccoon]

42. What an idiot. nt

[fascisthunter]

46. Incredibly Stupid and Unnecessary

but hey, let's not get in the way of gun culture.

[SteveM]

56. I noticed the OP didn't want to "get in the way" of the guns forum...

Maybe because his arguments would get, uh, shot down? There are guns legally and daily carried by civilians in virtually all airports in this country. Airports can't be "gun-free" even NOW because airlines allow firearms to be transported under safeguards. I can drive to an airport lot, walk into a terminal, go right up to the check-in desk, and retrieve my gun at a carousel as long as it is stored properly. If you and others don't notice those deer rifles in 5-foot boxes, how are you to notice a .38 in a pocket? Shheeesh.

[Longtooth]

95. What is unnecessary is to tell a law abiding person they cannot have the

most effective means of self defense in the unsecured portion of an airport.

[Longtooth]

96. Not stupid at all. It is respecting a persons civil liberties.

[dkofos]

50. I guess it would be OK to carry a gun into his office.

[SteveM]

58. Ask him. (nt)

[Recursion]

63. This is like Pavlov's dogs

Mention "gun" and watch 2/3rds of my party lose their frigging minds.

There are already guns in airports. I've checked a rifle to go hunting in Montana. To check it I had to carry it in the airport.

There are no guns in non-LEO hands past the security gate. There will not be. Nobody is asking for that.

Is anyone's knee sore from jerking, yet?

[aspergris]

70. good... guns are legal in many, if not most airports

in the non-secured areas. Does anybody have ANY evidence airports like SeaTac, that allow guns are less safe? Of course not. But guns are like icky and stuff!! (sarcasm)

[Dukkha]

86. Sonny Perdue is a lunatic

He couldn't govern a Civilization video game. This is the same person who though he could solve the state's drought problem by holding a christian prayer service on public grounds. Where's your messiah now?