Michael Moore is being sued!

[spazzed]

While your idea is intriguing 1DE, I find it more entertaining to watch him continuously make a fool out of himself. Better yet, we can bash him to death for his idiocy, better him than someone else..hehe

[billybob_81067]

LOL

Now I don't know about anyone else, but if I were ever in a situation such as the one Collegeboy has gotten himself into I would just calmly leave never to return, but no... he must be an ignorant butt and dig himself deeper and deeper into the pile of poo he is already in!

I find it quite entertaining and hilarious!

[spazzed]

Ya know what I think would be funny, is if he actually admitted he was wrong on all accounts & gave up his stupid charade.. But we all know that's not gonna happen, so we'll just keep bashing him

[Restola]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Sure, and they've upgraded the cockpit doors. But you situation always deals with 5 guys with machine guns, which probably lessens the affect of the door.

For the first couple months a certain airline's cockpit doors could be opened with a screwdriver in about 2 seconds.

Go go government regulations! Just thought I'd make you all feel safe

[Army]

CB, don't you ever DARE question my knowledge of firearms, ammunition effects, and terminal ballistics.

I've been at this professionally for over 25 years, and have shot more weapons from every country around the world, caused more ordnance to go high incident, and destroyed more objects than you could begin to imagine. A modern fully pressurized commercial aircraft will NOT be blown up, shot down, turned into a flaming ball, lose people out of tiny holes, or tumble wildly out of control because of a few, or even hundreds, of bullet holes.

The B36 was a piece of crap. The fuselage was only marginally stronger than a WWII bomber hull, which was not too much thicker than a beer can. The aircraft was so much junk, it was quickly replaced with the B42 Hustler. Don't question my military history knowledge either, you were still crapping your diapers when I was already an old salt in my Army.

ALL of my personally owned firearms are defensive weapons, regardless of their original purpose. The only time they are offensive, is when I forget to don my hearing protection.

Commercial aircraft are big and wide. A 747 has 8 seats in the middle section alone, so tell me; how the heck do you plan to stop the goober across all those seats and people? Big stick? Lasso? Foam #1 hand to shake your finger at him better? Taser? Pillow? You do know that airline pillows are tiny little things...right?

I suggest one well placed shot into his cranium, and apologise to the few people close-by that will get sprayed with the gore. 2 (I'll let you count them again) TWO attempts at hijacking El-Al flights have been attempted since 1973....both times resulted in 5 dead members of the PLO (yep, dear sweet Uncle Yassars little club), and not one casualty among the passengers or crew. huh, go figure... Consequently, nobody bothers to piss off the Israeli flight security teams any more.

Oh yeah, BTW....at altitude, with 8lbs of over-pressure in the cabin, guess how the toilets flush....

[tony emerson]

Originally posted by Konigballer
I swear, way to many gun owners get so paranoid about people "comin' for their guns", try not to sound to wacked out. Thats why they invented the term "gun nut" in the first place. Your going to go give us tennesseans a bad name, if we dont already have one.

This is why we get "paranoid"
Talking about england

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

and the rest of theSTORY HERE oh and by the way it may answer some questions about what restrictive gun laws do to a society.

[tony emerson]

More about MOORE and his very accurate depiction of the state of America.

[Collegeboy]

Army, I am glad you have experience in the way a gun fires, really good for you. Study after study has shown that a few shots placed in a close proximity to each other in a pressurized cabin, can lead to a sizable hole being created in the side of the airplane. But that is not the point I am arguing, I could care less if a hole is opened in the side.

The question, very simple one at that, that I am asking is why chose a gun to take out terrorist (plural) on a plane when in the best case scenario you will get two, before you yourself are swarmed by the others.

All of you have of first get this into your heads that this is what would happen. Forget the John Wayne crap about one man with one gun taking out 20 people before he is finally taken down. No matter what weapons the terrorist have, there is only so many people the guy can bring down before he is taking down. To me the most possible is 3, more likely 2. That leaves more then likely 3 terrorist left with now a gun instead of a razor blade.

I would be glad to state some of my ideas as to systems in which to disable all of the terrorist while causing the least amount of damage to the people. But by your responses to the possibilities it is clear you all are not even thinking of some of the ideas. Hint, they don't require one guy throwing a pillow, armed with a tazor gun, or one guy doing anything.

Take some more time and think about the question I am posing, and the way it is posed and what I have said about the actions of one man. Then come up with possible actions that could be taken.

[tony emerson]

I put YOU to the burden to give an answer to the question of what to do. Please do not point out all the problems and give no better choice. We are asking you for your wisdom. You dont want guns, Then WHAT. EASY question. ANSWER IT!

[tony emerson]

...or admit you do not have one!

[Collegeboy]

Before I give my suggestions people have to first agree that a gun in the cockpit will not be effective.

[tony emerson]

OK I will Bite. A Gun in the cockpit will not be effective.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by tony emerson
More about MOORE and his very accurate depiction of the state of America.

It's too bad the article doesn't cite sources for it's information. Bleh, maybe my stupid tech teacher won't notice.

[Collegeboy]

Now since you just said it and do not believe it, next time believe it.

Now pretend that you believe it.

Now take the knowledge that any action that is preformed by a person on a group of people will not be effective, now what else is there.

[pito189]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
All of you have of first get this into your heads that this is what would happen. Forget the John Wayne crap about one man with one gun taking out 20 people before he is finally taken down. No matter what weapons the terrorist have, there is only so many people the guy can bring down before he is taking down. To me the most possible is 3, more likely 2. That leaves more then likely 3 terrorist left with now a gun instead of a razor blade.

I won't bite. If a trained Air Marshall cannot take out 3-4 "armed" terriosts who have razor blades, with a gun. Then that person should not be an Air Marshall. That is the point of having a person trained in marksmenship and handling of the weapon.