allowing guns in cockpits

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Its hard to say... In Singapore, owning firearms is a capital offense
punishable by death and it is probably the safest country in the
world. Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
own a gun other than to kill? And so they see no point in letting a
person with a gun live. Gun control doesn't always have to be about
giving a free pass to criminals.
Japan is another extremely safe country where guns are strictly
controlled without the harsh penalties of Singapore. Education,
culture, laws etc all play a role in making a country safe. Would
Japan be just as safe if everybody owned a gun? Its possible but
hardly worth the experiment.

And Japan has an almost 100% "confession" rate of people arrested. Do
you know what that is? Might want to do some homework before answering.

It's Jay's and your wet dream, that's what it is...

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Grumman-581 wrote in
news
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:43:48 -0800, William Hung wrote:

"All myths aside, the 5.56 mm round has killed a LOT of Asian losers who
thought they could screw with Americans and come out ahead." What does
that author have against Asians?
It's like asian food... Once you kill one, 30 minutes later, you feel a
need to kill another...


A bit like texans then

Only better-smelling.

Grumman-581 wrote:
I try not to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed... It's
just not all that sporting, ya' know?

Not to mention fratricidal for a Texan.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just a
troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough to
get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his typical whiny
insults, leaving you sputtering.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again illustrates
just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would wise up, though --
the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is through your replies.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 10:50 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
:





On Jan 9, 10:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??

Nope.

These guys had box cutters. The only way

they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert

Jay Honeck wrote:
Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just a
troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough
to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his typical
whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again illustrates
just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would wise up, though
-- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is through your
replies.

And yet you always seem to comment on it. Hmmmm....

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:77Chj.294537$Fc.258655@attbi_s21:

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just
a troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long enough
to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with his
typical whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.


Nope.

I treat anyone who converses intelligently as such and anyone who doesn't,
well like I treat you.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again
illustrates just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would
wise up, though -- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore is
through your replies.


Yeah, right.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens wrote in
. net:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

Punked again.

Robert, Bertie isn't "emotionally invested" in the issue -- he's just
a troll.

He will carry on an intelligent conversation with you just long
enough to get you interested -- and then he will dope-slap you with
his typical whiny insults, leaving you sputtering.

The fact that so many here fall for his ploy again and again
illustrates just how good he is at it. I sure wish you guys would
wise up, though -- the only reason I see his drivel at all anymore
is through your replies.

And yet you always seem to comment on it. Hmmmm....


Well, first he says He's sure I'm not a pilot and then I am,

I'm of two minds to call work and tel them I can't come in til Jay resolves
this issue.

Bertie

Their thinking is quite logical because why would you want to
own a gun other than to kill?

*cough* Hey, I'm trying to drink coffee here.

And so they see no point in letting a
person with a gun live.

"Letting" people live--particularly those who have caused no harm to
others--isn't a function of government in a free society.

-c

"Robert M. Gary" wrote
"...The right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That's why I cut all the sleeves off my shirts ......


David


--
We had a quicksand box in our backyard. I was an only child, eventually.

"dVaridel" wrote in news:47880988$0
:

That's why I cut all the sleeves off my shirts ......

Thats bare .. bare .. bare :-)

--