Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines

This is a discussion on Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by bandit383 You give up certain rights when you get on an aircraft or any vessal for that matter....smoking is classic example. No ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 64

Thread: Lack of respect for the 2A: CCW on Air Lines

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,022
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    You give up certain rights when you get on an aircraft or any vessal for that matter....smoking is classic example. No one is forcing you to fly.
    Yes, it's done that way, but IMO there is not and never has been any rational reason why rights must be surrendered to travel. None whatsoever. It's governmental control of the populace, pure and simple.

    Think about it. Long distance travel has been, for as long as humans have recorded history, a risky affair. In recent times, the stagecoach lines were magnets for criminal attack, and only a fool would go unarmed. Today, it's not much safer, though there are somewhat fewer four-legged predators around.

    But somehow, once the common man has an affordable means of protection, the governing "rulers" step in to deny him that ability. They place checkpoints and authorize the broad search of citizens who have done no wrong, whose only infraction is the seeking to execute an absolute good in the face of attack. It's about control ... and not of the predators.

    If anything, it's at a place with a greater concentration of people that justifies greater ability to quickly overcome and withstand attack. I have never understood the predilection some politicians have to deem public travel as a protected zone of sorts, that somehow magically demands disarming of innocent people.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Tye_Defender View Post
    1) It doesn't matter whether you have been trained to shoot a terrorist in a plane. Taking out a BG in a plane is probably easier then in any of the places we routinely carry!

    2) Just about any plane flying today can still fly if you removed all the electronics. Planes fly amazingly well, it's harder to get a plane to not fly then you would think. Heard a story recently of a plane that ran out of fuel 98 miles from the nearest airport. When the engines quit, there is no power generated so most of the electronics are out. They managed to glide all the way to the airport and land. They were probably going about 5 miles per minute (300 knots) and were at ~38000 feet when they lost the engines. I think they were coming down about 2000 feet per minute in their glide so it was probably tight but they made it to the airport and actually had to kill speed at the end to keep from overshooting the airport.
    Good discussion...have you ever seen chaos on an aircraft...have you ever listened to the audio tapes...do you think everybody is going to sit there calmly waiting for you to shoot the bad guy?

    Electronics are not out when the engines quit...if that was true, when you're at the gate, there would be no lights in the tube when the engines are not running. In your example..they were not without some electrical power.

    Let me clearer...one shot is most likely not a problem. Can an aircraft be brought down with one shot...very unlikely. However, one can damage an aircraft enough to cause severe controllability problems thus making the aircraft very difficult to land. Do I want to take that chance with CCW on the aircraft...no way.

    Again...I agree with one poster, the likelihood of another 9/11 hijacking is very remote. That being said, for those that fly, I hope you use the same vigilance while CCW on the ground that you would use in the air.

    Rick

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    Funny cartoon. Flawed logic, but funny to think about it happening that way. The terrorists simply would have brought guns. Because the way some people read it, no one in the US would need a permit to carry a gun.

    Let's take a permit holder scenario and even say it is with current reciprocity. The destinations of the aircraft were California. One flight originated out of Newark, so those passengers would have been disarmed as well. Not many of us have valid permits in California, which was the destination of all the flights. Therefore we would have still been disarmed and in that case the terrorists would still have used box cutters and similar.

    Even if we remove the obstacles to concealed carry assuming a nationwide system such as LEO SA. Currently only about 2.8% of the population of Virginia even has a permit. Only about 1% carry on a regular basis. Given the origination points of the planes and the aircraft type (757s carry 150 and 767s about 200 passengers) there might be 1-3 people carrying other than the terrorists. The terrorists used 4-5 per plane. They knew who their team was, the gun carriers would have no such luxury. How would carriers identify each other without being identified to the terrorists? Special boarding cards or status would give them away making them the first targets of the terrorists.

    I really think that the terrorists would have run a different program if they thought there would be an armed defense on the aircraft. On at least two of the flights (AA 11 and UA 175) it is known that the terrorists used pepper or OC spray to keep passengers at bay.

    As for giving up any rights. You don't have a right to air travel. I'm not aware of any test cases, so maybe someone who believes that air travel is a right will begin the process of a court challenge to test that theory.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    Likely or not, one shot could bring that plane down. Cutting through wires with a bullet could well start a fire on board. That is a very, very bad thing in the air. You could kill the pilot, also a very, very bad thing in the air. The dif between your right to carry on earth and in the air: On the ground you miss it is concievable that you hit a bystander. In the air, it is concievable that you kill a few hundred people. As has been said, there is no "right" to travel the airlines. Given the crap I've seen knucklehaeds do at the range, I don't want them taking my life into their hands. Sorry. I do wish that ALL cockpit members of flight crews could and would "man up" and get training and weapons.
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this mini documentary!
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  6. #35
    Member Array Tye_Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    Electronics are not out when the engines quit...if that was true, when you're at the gate, there would be no lights in the tube when the engines are not running. In your example..they were not without some electrical power.
    This may be slightly off topic, but it is applicable to shooting on the plane so here goes. The reason you have electrical power at the gate is they have a power unit that is plugged in. The NTSB report about the airliner I referenced specifically mentioned the loss of electrical power to most of the systems so it did indeed occur with that airliner. They also lost pressurization so everyone had to go on oxygen. Apparently, both these systems are "powered" by the engines.

    For the most part, airplanes are built to fail-safe so the loss of one system does not make the plane un-flyable.

    As to carrying on a plane, if the only 2 arguments are passenger safety during a hijacking and plane controlability after a shooting then I would say, let everyone carry on the plane. Neither of those issues would be a deterrent for me. For one, I don't expect the passengers to survive anyway. And for another, I expect the plane to be used as a weapon against people on the ground. If the good guy disables the plane to the point where it's going to crash (unlikely in my mind) that's a good thing.

    That being said, I'm still against carry on a plane but I don't know quite why yet. Just seems like a bad idea to me.

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,022
    As for giving up any rights. You don't have a right to air travel.
    One does not have a right to walk down the street, either, in that same sense. It's a matter of proportion. The mere fact it's an airplane doesn't by itself demand that the right to self defense be rescinded, in spite of the safety risks. (A firearm is not the only method of defense, of course.) Heck, these days, if one's found with nail clippers, one is deemed a felon-in-waiting. It's simply abused thinking to imagine the gains in any way make up for the losses.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #37
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    That being said, I'm still against carry on a plane but I don't know quite why yet. Just seems like a bad idea to me.
    Thats because you havent been here long enough and properly conditioned yet. Stick around. You'll come around eventually...
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #38
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have to completely disagree with this. What we have now is working sufficiently to have prevented another hijacking since 9/11. The increased security measures have obviously been a deterrent despite that anxious and impatient people have been 'ticked off.'

    Further, the improved security onboard the aircrafts has also decreased the possibility of another 9/11. We have no idea how many flights have armed air marshals, who are specifically trained for aircraft encounters.
    What makes you think the increased security measures are an "obvious" deterrent? Just curious. There's very little to substantiate that, and simply saying that because an incident hasn't occurred since doesn't hold, since an attack may not have been planned either.

    TSA conducted tests between late 2005 and late 2006 and found that most of the fake bombs slipped through screeners without being caught or reported: 75% got through LA International and 60% through O'Hare. The only other reported note was that the private security companies of San Fransisco International only had a 20% failure rate. Comforting numbers, no? Having a close friend who spent time working for TSA in Orlando International, he confirmed that most of the tests were failed.

    As for on-board security, it's no secret that air marshals are taxed. There are too few, and the washout rate is absurdly high because of the high qualification requirements, and there's been talk for a long time about removing the shooting requirement altogether, or at least not making it optional as opposed to mandatory, just to increase the numbers of air marshals.

    I'm not advocating everyone on board carrying. Frankly, I agree with you and know for a fact that most people don't have the level of skill required to perform well, or even well enough during in-flight scenarios to be a positive influence. What I am advocating, though, is that the air liners be given permission to make those decisions. Property rights and all that. They want to keep guns out of passengers' hands, fair enough, they take responsibility for the safety of their passengers. I mentioned several ideas that would be a very visible deterrence to potential attacks, and there's many others out there, too.


    -B

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Tye_Defender View Post
    This may be slightly off topic, but it is applicable to shooting on the plane so here goes. The reason you have electrical power at the gate is they have a power unit that is plugged in. The NTSB report about the airliner I referenced specifically mentioned the loss of electrical power to most of the systems so it did indeed occur with that airliner. They also lost pressurization so everyone had to go on oxygen. Apparently, both these systems are "powered" by the engines.
    I had to chuckle a bit...many gate receptacles (gate power) do not work. Nevertheless, when the aircraft is pushed away from the gate, the engines still have not been started....I can guarantee the gate power cord does not stretch that far.

    As for this particular aircraft in the NTSB report...I am familiar with it. Some power was lost from the engine driven generators and pressurization will be lost as well with both engines out. But there are 3 other sources of power...a RAT, APU, and battery.

    Can shots in an aircraft knockout both engines...unlikely, but there are other systems that control the flight controls...including the pilots.

    Obviously, I think guns in the cabin is a very bad idea for all the reasons already mentioned...and can pretty much guarantee that the pilot unions would be as well. As they say, you don't have to fly.

    Rick

  11. #40
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    What makes you think the increased security measures are an "obvious" deterrent? Just curious. There's very little to substantiate that, and simply saying that because an incident hasn't occurred since doesn't hold, since an attack may not have been planned either.
    It is obvious because an attack has not occurred. Perhaps it is because an attack wasn't planned due to increased security measures. Perhaps security actually detained people who did try to smuggle contraband on board. Just because it isn't reported does not mean it did not happen. The only evidence we have is that an attack has not occurred. I, for one, would not be willing to forgo airline security to test whether no screening is better than some screening.

    TSA conducted tests between late 2005 and late 2006 and found that most of the fake bombs slipped through screeners without being caught or reported: 75% got through LA International and 60% through O'Hare. The only other reported note was that the private security companies of San Fransisco International only had a 20% failure rate. Comforting numbers, no? Having a close friend who spent time working for TSA in Orlando International, he confirmed that most of the tests were failed.
    Yes, many of the tests could not be considered satisfactory. Still, the 'bombs' that got through were disassembled. It is also the case that even if assembled they might not have been able to take an airplane down. The point of security is not to eliminate the chance of a terrorist attack but rather to minimize it. It is also the case that the testers are already familiar with TSA the screening process and devised tests to expose holes they knew already existed. The terrorists do not have such intimate knowledge. (Though with making these test public they certainly do now )

    As for on-board security, it's no secret that air marshals are taxed. There are too few, and the washout rate is absurdly high because of the high qualification requirements, and there's been talk for a long time about removing the shooting requirement altogether, or at least not making it optional as opposed to mandatory, just to increase the numbers of air marshals.
    It's a secret to me! I cannot tell if there is an air marshal aboard or not. Can you? Further, the actual number of air marshals should never be provided to the public. As with other security measures, the fact there may be an air marshall (armed or not) is a deterrent.

    What I am advocating, though, is that the air liners be given permission to make those decisions. Property rights and all that.
    Air travel is a national security issue. That makes it not only a public concern, but a Federal one, as well.

  12. #41
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    I don't understand your first argument. Terrorist attacks against Americans ON American soil are exceedingly rare. Specifically, it's only happened five times: a 1920 New York City bombing on Wall Street that was never solved, a 1975 New York City bombing in the Fraunces Tavern by a Puerto Rican nationalist group, a 1993 New York City bombing in the World Trade Center basement by militant Islamics with Al-Qaeda help, a 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and the 2001 crashing of planes into the World Trade center. That's it. Not diminishing the tragedies, but let's be objective and treat the concerns we're addressing realistically. A terrorism incident hasn't occurred in the little more than 6 years since the last incident. Look at the above dates; does it look like this is done often? Do you think, perhaps, security was beefed up after each of these events, too?

    I don't buy that argument. There is nothing, not one thing, to suggest that the increased airport measures have made us safer. TSA has on their website an area listing the numbers of and types of "contraband" they confiscate; I highly recommend looking at this list.

    The air marshals have an advantage in that there is very little known about them, which I think is part of the mistake. Do we want to react to danger or prevent danger in our own borders? The security philosophy is to "harden the target", right? Make it visibly tougher. Don't give exact numbers, but make it known that somewhere on each plane at least a couple air marshals are on board. Make it known that the pilots are armed, and that the hatch to the cockpit is bulletproof and is only opening if they want it to open. Deterrence through subtlety is only deterring the mildly-interested. But this isn't even the problem: the problem is the federal government, who has taken the liberty to restrict the ability of those it governs to defend themselves, have not adequately provided for the defense of the people it governs. You know as well as I do, and as well as most of us do, that a "gun free zone" doesn't make the area safe, even and especially from guns. Lifting the restriction of firearms from airways is but one solution; it's a solution I prefer, as you probably can tell, but it's still just one solution. That can be made into a goal to work towards, and in the meanwhile adding a couple (or more) people to every flight to look like you and I but are armed and well-trained, and making the fact that these people are on board, not that they might be on board, will go a long ways to providing real deterrence.

    And no, air-travel is not a national security issue any more than road travel, the internet, or any number of other areas are. Just because a means can be a national security issue (which almost anything in existence can be, I should add), doesn't necessarily make it a federal issue by default. Are you supportive of federally-mandated vaccinations, roads subject entirely to federal jurisdiction, a federally-regulated internet, among other such regulations and restrictions, too?


    -B

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    there were a few more terrorist attacks on US soil.
    3/9/77 USA Washington, DC 1 1 Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B'nai B'rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.
    1/25/93 USA Langley, VA 2 3 A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.

    and don't forget the unibomber

    the NYC bomber 1930's stopped during ww2(might have been deployed) started bombing again in 1948

    and many others
    and is it just me or is newyork city a magnet for terrorists?
    Last edited by bobcat35; January 14th, 2008 at 05:34 PM. Reason: just thought of something
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  14. #43
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    I don't understand your first argument. Terrorist attacks against Americans ON American soil are exceedingly rare. Specifically, it's only happened five times: a 1920 New York City bombing on Wall Street that was never solved, a 1975 New York City bombing in the Fraunces Tavern by a Puerto Rican nationalist group, a 1993 New York City bombing in the World Trade Center basement by militant Islamics with Al-Qaeda help, a 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and the 2001 crashing of planes into the World Trade center. That's it.
    WOW! That is not nearly it and it is not rare at all. Perhaps you are not including the early '70s, when Nation of Islam followers terrorized and murdered people all through California. In one incident, a family of seven was shot including four children. Two were killed.

    Or how about in the arly '90s, when two CIA agents were murdered by Muslims in VA. Or the Empire State Building hen seven people were shop by a Muslim fanatic.

    Let's not leave out the Beltway sniper, who went throughout the country killing people including a guy in Tucson at a golf course I frequent.

    Oh! I forgot. In 2002, the Muslim killed two people at LA International until El AL security killed him. How about the Muslim that ran down seven people in NC?

    Not to mention (OK I'm going to mention) the Muslim that shot up a Jewish center in Seattle or the Utah mall attack.

    If those aren't significant terrorist attacks then we can certainly include the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania, Syria, and Kenya, all sovereign American soil.

    Enough?

    Not diminishing the tragedies, but let's be objective and treat the concerns we're addressing realistically. A terrorism incident hasn't occurred in the little more than 6 years since the last incident. Look at the above dates; does it look like this is done often? Do you think, perhaps, security was beefed up after each of these events, too?
    I assume you now realize that terrorists attacks are commonplace, even in America. It looks to me that it is done often. And now that the enemy has become more organized the threats are far more severe than a lone gunman. The terrorist group in Buffalo was thwarted because of superior intelligence gathering (Yes, the Patriot Act.)

    I don't buy that argument. There is nothing, not one thing, to suggest that the increased airport measures have made us safer.
    Only the results.

    The air marshals have an advantage in that there is very little known about them, which I think is part of the mistake. Do we want to react to danger or prevent danger in our own borders? The security philosophy is to "harden the target", right? Make it visibly tougher.
    Not necessarily. Part of preventing terrorist attacks is infiltrating their groups and learning their plans. Clearly, we do not have the resources to harden every potential target. What we can do is keep the enemy on edge, on guard, and not knowing when they will be caught or whether their targets are weakly or strongly protected.

    Don't give exact numbers, but make it known that somewhere on each plane at least a couple air marshals are on board. Make it known that the pilots are armed, and that the hatch to the cockpit is bulletproof and is only opening if they want it to open.
    I agree we should arm all the pilots. And it has been mandated that all cockpit doors are secured. But we certainly don't want to provide false evidence of air marshals. That is simply a bad idea.

    Deterrence through subtlety is only deterring the mildly-interested. But this isn't even the problem: the problem is the federal government, who has taken the liberty to restrict the ability of those it governs to defend themselves, have not adequately provided for the defense of the people it governs.
    It is the responsibility of the Federal government to secure the nation and our people. That is the form of government we agreed to by means of the Constitution. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security. There is no evidence that any liberty has been infringed bynot allowing guns by ordinary citizens of aircraft.


    That can be made into a goal to work towards, and in the meanwhile adding a couple (or more) people to every flight to look like you and I but are armed and well-trained, and making the fact that these people are on board, not that they might be on board, will go a long ways to providing real deterrence.
    No difference for the purposes deterrence. If 99% of the flights have air marshals it is not credible to believe the one percent would be picked, same for 98%, 97% and so forth. You have no idea how many flights have air marshals. Maybe it is all of them. You don't know.

    And no, air-travel is not a national security issue any more than road travel, the internet, or any number of other areas are. Just because a means can be a national security issue (which almost anything in existence can be, I should add), doesn't necessarily make it a federal issue by default.
    Well, yes it does according to the Constitution. And air travel, more than the others is a severe national security issue. Missiles traveling at greater than 500 mph, filled with American citizens absolutely poses a national security issue. Notwithstanding the lives lost and the act of war but, as we saw after 9/11, is severely affects the economy.

    Also, the Interstate system, built by the Federal government, was proposed and carried out by Eisenhower precisely because it was a national security issue.

    Are you supportive of federally-mandated vaccinations, roads subject entirely to federal jurisdiction, a federally-regulated internet, among other such regulations and restrictions, too?
    Vaccinations are not a security issue, obviously. I have already opined about the roads, which is why the NAFTA law, enabling Mexicans to use our roads is so high profile these days.

    And yes, the internet should be monitored for terrorist threats as that is a means of international communication for the enemy. Should it be regulated? Parts of it, yes. I absolutely abhor the pornography that is unavoidable to viewing by our children. People spending their government welfare checks on casino gambling sites? We have laws prohibiting gambling. We have laws that prevent children of accessing pornography. The internet is simply a way to bypass laws. That is a bad thing, not a good thing.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 14th, 2008 at 07:32 PM. Reason: fix typos

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Get a grip you'all who think cartoons like that are good. This is what make gun friendly people look like wako's. 2A does protect rights, but it doesn't protect wakos...

    Aircraft are flying aluminum cans with delicate engine parts, fragile aerodynamic surfaces, liquid oxygen, and about 8,000 gallons of jet fuel. Not the sort of place one wants to start a gun fight. I am certain one of the first lessons Air Marshals and Pilots who CCW get is "when it's ok to shoot and not destroy the aircraft"

    Airports and planes are one of the few "gun free zones" that are actually a good idea. Given the metal detectors and baggage screening, one can be reasonably certain that there are no weapons around.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  16. #45
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    A) Its supposed to be a right not a privilege Meaning no one should be able to take that "right" away. If permission need be granted than it is a privilege. So is the answer comes down to whether you believe 2nd Amendment a right or a privilege.

    B) A plane containing 100 passengers would have to be brought down every week for 92 weeks to equal the number of dead & injured on 9/11. (Deaths=2,993 (including 19 terrorists) Injured=6,291+ source Wikipedia ) That will never happen. Even in the unlikely event that lone gun men could bring a plane down the reality is that a single hijacked plane can and has caused more deaths in a single day than a periodic plane falling out of the sky will ever cause.

    C) The rights of 9,284 American citizens were violated on September 11, 2001 because the 2nd Amendment right of American citizens flying on planes that day were violated. Had the right to bear arms not been violated most of those people would be alive today.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. S&W lost my respect
    By dukalmighty in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 28th, 2009, 08:45 AM
  2. Show some respect please...
    By Derrin33 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 09:53 AM
  3. Visiting Respect in DC
    By SixBravo in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 10th, 2007, 11:42 AM
  4. Respect for Wheelies...
    By BlueLion in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 10th, 2006, 10:46 AM
  5. Out of respect?
    By mzmtg in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 21st, 2006, 06:24 PM