Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (3833)	11/4/2003 4:03:23 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<You are nuts if you think a single armed marshall couldn't have killed all the highjackers prior to hitting ground targets>>> The only problem is where are you going to find enough US Marshals to put one on every flight in the country? Even if you could, how many folks with that level of training are going to want to work as rent-a-cops for airports? For starters, the airlines aren't likely to want to cover the expense. What you'd most likely end up with is low paid men with guns who are more interested in getting a pretty flight attendant's phone number. The shear boredom of waiting for a hijacking every few decades would render them useless within the first few months on the job. One possible alternative might be to allow persons with concealed weapons permits to declare their guns and carry them on board. Add a second layer of background checks and a special endorsement to the permit if necessary. You'd probably get a fair cross section of vacationing law enforcement personnel anyhow, along with responsible persons with a high enough opinion of personal defense to know how to handle a gun. You might not get 100% coverage of all flights, but a potential hijacker would never know if he was getting on a plane without any armed citizens, or one with 20 guns aimed at his back. I honestly don't know if that would be the perfect solution, or even if there is a perfect solution. Living in a free country, and being a free citizen, involves a certain degree of risk. It also requires a far higher degree of personal responsibility than what our current social structure appears willing to assume. "Someone should be responsible for taking care of me.", is a slave mentality. Massa will probably feed you, protect you by force of arms, provide a minimum level of health care, and make sure you keep your little hands busy picking cotton on the back forty, but personally, I'd rather have a few more options. IMO, the risk of possibly making a poor decision that results in missing a meal is better than a taste of the lash. One involves taking responsibility for making better decisions to improve one's lot in life, the other has no cure. I guess it comes down to whether you're someone who says, "What can I do to make things better?", or someone who says, "Someone should do something.".