Quote:
Ron, thanks for the clarification on guns on planes. Nevertheless, the hijackings pretty much ended when guns were excluded in a serious manner
.

The second sentence, char, seems to indicate that the clarification provided was insufficient to the task. Hijackings ended because the the potential of a threat was removed. Pulling a valise from the overhead and claiming it contained a bomb would hardly be taken seriously when everyone knows it, with every other piece of luggage on-board, had been carefully examined and deemed harmless. The same results could have been realized even had guns been exempted from restrictions.

Quote:
The 9/11 hijackings were very cleverly conceived, planned for many months, and could not be duplicated today. Allowing guns on planes does not seem wise if one looks at the history.


I agree that 9/11 methods would not have the same results today. The methods were not even able to carry through on the entire 9/11 plan. But, what history deems it unwise to allow guns on planes?

Quote:
And this (if true at all) is due to their carrying guns? How?


There could be other factors in play, as well, but the gun factor is not a deniable one.

Quote:
The availability and prevalence of guns in a society is more closely associated with violence, strife, and disorder than it is with anything that can be termed "polite".


In a society where violence, strife and disorder are a way of life, politeness would be scarce even without the availability of guns. By contrast, in a society where, in the main, order is desired, guns are a means of preserving that order.

Quote:
There are certainly arguments to be made for allowing them anyway, but let's face the facts rather than relying on discredited bromides. You guys have the second amendment on your side; the "gun grabbers" aren't going to reach their goal.


To a large extent, the "gun grabbers" have achieved a semblance of their goal already. That Second Amendment says that the keeping add bearing of guns is a right not to be infringed. But if you guys are correct about the Fourteenth Amendment, when the State says I must be licensed to avail myself of what the Second Amendment calls a right, that is an infringement just as much as if there were similar restrictions involving anything in the First Amendment. If the State of Texas required of me a background check, an English proficiency test and a fee for posting on the Net and I railed against it, would you call me a speech fetishist? If not, then you let your bias override your intellect when you call me a gun fetishist.
---


All we are saaayinnng ... is give war a chance