Daniel Terp wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:26:29 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> Yeah, like the cattle you seem to think we all should be. Unless a few
>> of those passengers had the ability to SHOOT BACK. That might have
>> caused a different outcome- assuming the passengers had more guts than
>> you give them credit for.
>
>
> Now there's a clever idea, an all out fire fight in a pressurized
> cabin at 35,000 feet. Punch a few holes in the airframe and maybe take
> out the hydraulic system and navigation servos while we're at it.
>
> Why not just issue hand grenades to everyone as they board?
Gosh, Daniel. You're just SO damn right. Why, we should all just be
quiet little sheep and stop resisting on our way to the slaughter. That
might make something bad happen, unlike Tuesday, huh? After all, the
"professionals" with all their superior resources managed to stop those
evil terrorists, before they managed to carry out their sinister plot,
right? After all, we mere mortals are just a bunch of dead Yahoos- but
the "professionals"- hey; THEY never drop the ball and leave it to the
rest of us "Sheeple" to fend for ourselves. You want to accuse me of
living in some rambo fantasyland, Daniel, but frankly, you might want to
look in the mirror at your own argument, because it seems to be
explosively decompressing itself, thanks to all the HOLES in it.
> They don't have to conceal them, remember? You made carrying them on a
> plane legal.
Really? Did you bother to read my post, or were you afraid that the
facts might interfere with your premise? What I said was that
individuals with legal concealed carry permits should be allowed to
carry their weapons onboard. Last time I checked, my carry permit
refers to a pistol, not an Uzi.
>
> I doubt someone rigging a car bomb cares whether the victims are armed
> or unarmed. It didn't seem to matter in Beirut. It doesn't seem to
> matter in Israel. You really don't understand how terrorism works, do
> you?
No, but I DO know the difference between an aircraft and a car. And I
also know that every time I point that fact out, you try to conviently
twist the conversation from the issue of legal carry permit holders
being able to carry aboard aircraft to some other aspect of terrorism,
like car bombs. What that tells me (and possibly a few others following
this) is that you really don't understand the concept of "scope" in an
argument. And if you can't win within those bounds, you try to distract
by throwing some other aspect into it. I never claimed that legally
carrying weapons by registered permit holders who have been through
training and a background check by law enforcement personnel in their
county of residence would solve every form of terrorism. You are the
one who keeps trying to bring car bombs, etc., into this. I believe
that's because even though you refuse to admit it, even you recognize
that in the scope of my argument, I am right (although I don't expect
you to be willing to admit it now, either). But that's alright. Your
choice of approach in your responses says it all.
> Actually, many of my family were in the Danish resistance. Some were
> decorated, some were buried.
Good thing THEY didn't wait for the "professionals" to come and fight
for them, or you might be having this conversation in German.
> This is a terrorist war. You don't get to see the enemy, and until you
> get that through your thick head you will just be another target for
> Bin Laden and his buddies.
As opposed to you, who will just be another victim on the airliner.
Again, you are trying to slip this out of the original scope, and into
terrorism in general.
> You can't wait for them to come marching down the street and then pick
> them off.
Who said anything about the street? I thought we were talking about
33,000 ft in the sky, remember? There you go again, Daniel.
> You have to spot them before they act. But that takes more
> than a big gun, so I guess that's beyond you.
Yeah. Of course, once YOU spot them, all you can do is sit there and
whimper, and wish had a personal contingent of trained professionals to
follow you around where ever you go, including in the airliner. Given a
choice, I'd rather have the big gun that's there, than the
"professionals" sitting on the ground eating doughnuts, if faced with a
hijacker at 30,000 ft. above the ground. Because even if you HAD your
own personal Praetorian Guard to follow you around, if the hijacker uses
a bomb without any warning, you'll all be just as dead same as I would,
but if he tries to commander the plane to take it somewhere, I'd have at
least SOME chance of stopping him, whereas without guard or gun, you're
just along for the ride...
>
> I never said give up, I said fight smart.
Really? That's funny, 'cause this whole argument started when you said
that only "professionals" should have guns to protect themselves onboard
aircraft, remember?
> Know the enemy, don't just
> expect him to act like the last guy did.
Fine. THAT much I agree with you on. But without the means to DO
ANYTHING about it, all that is useless if the "professionals" fail to
take the battle to him "over there" first. And that is precisely what
happened Tuesday. And I still say that IF those passengers who had
legal concealed carry permits had been allowed to have their weapons
onboard with them, they would have had a chance of stopping what
happened. There's just no way that you can convience me that a last
line of defense is worse than not having any last line of defense.
> Do the research and be
> prepared. Know where he's going and what he plans to do.
But like I said, what good would that have done the passengers Tuesday,
if they couldn't have done anything about it? Do you honestly believe
that you are capable of knowing every single plan of every single
terrorist in time to stop it before it gets that far? What you are
talking about, in gathering intel and doing what you can from the
government's point of view to stop them is great. BUT it doesn't always
work. And you can't tell me that you can guarentee my safety by only
using that system. If you know how to do that, then why did you let all
those people die? Simple. YOU didn't. Because you can't stop all of
it any more than the "professionals", here, or in Israel, or anywhere
else. And neither can I- I don't claim to be able to. But I don't see
why I should be denied the RIGHT to be able to at least TRY to save my
own life, and maybe a few thousand others, just because YOU think it
should all be handled by the State.
> Take a (bad) example from George Armstrong Custer. He assumed it was
> just another bunch of indians, until they had his scalp in their
> hands.
Fine. But wasn't HE supposed to be one of the "professionals", too?
Hell, that just goes to make MY point!
> I own a gun, in fact several, but I'm not counting on them to save me
> from a terrorist attack.
No, I guess you expect God to either "miracle" you out of it, or on the
cavalry to ride in and save the day. Oh, wait, they got scalped by the
indians, remember? Guess you're on your own, after all.
> I know better, I've seen a terrorist attack
> first hand.
My sympathies. But was it a hijacking? Or a random car bomb? Because
IF you read my post, you'll notice I was referring to a specific
terrorist operation; a hijacking. Not a car bomb, or even a bomb on the
aircraft. A hijacking, as was done on Tuesday, that results in a
planeload of innocent, DEFENSELESS people being flown to their deaths
and into a city causing the deaths of THOUSANDS of others. An attack
that the "professionals" FAILED to prevent.
> Yeah, yeah big balls. And no brains to go with them. To win a war you
> need to think first, shoot second.
Hmm. Think first, SHOOT second. And just how do I do that, when only
the "professionals" have a gun? Sounds like YOU didn't "think first"
before you wrote that.
> And if you fail to do either,
> you're just yesterday's lunchmeat.
Would you prefer to be served on Rye, or Whole Wheat?
>
> Like I said, if you think you can outshoot a hundred pounds of Semtex,
> you're welcome to try.
And like I said, again you're stepping outside of the original argument
to grasp for straws.
> I'll be happy to say "he had balls, and there they go - flying over
> the treetops"
Oh, that's cute. I like that. And I'll be sure to let everyone know
that the terrorists all complemented you on being the most well-behaved
and compliant hostage of the whole trip, right before they killed you
and all the rest. We'll be sure to put a little silver star sticker on
your tombstone, for good behavior.
> Why is it in all these fantasy scenarios the good guys have the guns
> and the bad guys just seem to have forgotten them?
I dunno. Why is it in yours that you think the State is going to give a
rat's ass about protecting YOUR safety?
> You've got a gun, he has a knife.
Hey, he's got a car bomb, and a Uzi, remember? And he's invisible,
appearantly, because no one can spot him when he grabs the first hostage
on the plane.
> If you've made carrying a gun on a plane legal, don't you think the
> terrorists are going to think to bring one?
See, here you don't seem to know much about getting a concealed carry
permit. I would hope that the law enforcement "professionals" you want
us all to trust our lives with might be competent enough to perform a
background check, prints, etc. on old Abdullah, whose false records
should be spotted when they don't match what's in the NCIC database. So
even though they might think to bring one, they are going to have to
sneak it past your trained "professionals", which they seem to be able
to do anyway. So how is keeping the rest of us from also being armed
going to stop them from having their weapons?
> I bet they'll ALL bring
> one, and big ones too. Or are you going to ask everybody before they
> get on the plane " are you a terrorist?
> If you are, you'll have to check your gun"
No, that's the job of the "professionals". You sure don't seem to have
a lot of faith in the abilities of those who the rest of us are supposed
to trust OUR lives into the hands of, do you? And if YOU don't believe
in their ability to keep us safe, why should we listen to YOUR opinion
on how to defend ourselves? It seems like even you don't believe there
is any realistic way that they can insure our safety, and neither do I.
That's why I am arguing that we should be able to defend ourselves.
> So here's how the REAL scenario works out. You draw, point, and the
> terrorist's buddy, (who's got the drop on you because he KNEW this was
> a hijacking) drops you like a trophy deer.
Sounds great, IF I'm the ONLY carry permit holder on board. Now change
the numbers around a bit. I draw on him, his buddy draws on me, and
then the other twenty or so permit holders on the flight draw on them.
Unless the terrorists are on their own charter flight, the odds are more
likely in my side's favor than theirs. And they really have no way of
knowing, either. That may not stop all of them from trying, but it
might make them think about choosing an easier target, at least. But I
never said it would be an end-all cure to terrorism, now did I?
> Oh, right. The terrorist that has trained for this for months is going
> to announce himself, then wait while you sneak up behind him and shoot
> him before he detonates the bomb.
Bomb, knife, or pistol? Make up your mind. Quick, before he turns
invisible again. Besides, if he is trying to hijack the plane, his
actions are going to speak for him.
> Maybe he'll get you coffee while you get ready.
Or maybe I'll be sitting in a seat to the rear, watching the people
around me, and while he gets up to go get the stewardess, I'll get my
chance at him. He has to make the first move, and unless that is to
detonate a bomb where we are, then he is going to have to act to
commander the plane. All I have to do is be paying attention when he
does, and have the means to react. It won't stop a bomb, but it WOULD
stop a hijacking.
> You're in a post office, an old man walks in, boom.
> Read the papers, son, that's how it's done.
Again, boy, you're wandering. When did the captain land at the Post
Office? Did the stewardess need some stamps?
> You did away with the security checkpoints as part of your "freedom to
> carry lethal weapons on aircraft" act, remember?
No, I merely allowed those of us with legal concealed carry permits to
carry our weapons onboard. How does that equate with "freedom to carry
lethal weapons on aircraft" without passing through any security
checkpoints?
> Congratulations, Now can we have an option where everybody doesn't
> die?
You've got one of those? Well, goddamn, boy, where the hell were you 3
days ago? Why didn't you stop those sons-a-bitches? You know so damn
much; you know these terrorists' hearts and minds, why the hell didn't
you go to the CIA and tell those poor dumb bastards how to do their
jobs? I'm sure they were sitting there at their desks, all wondering
when some genius who knows all there is to know about fighting
terrorists was gonna walk in the front door and enlighten them.
> Like an intelligence network that allows us to identify this guy
> before he got on the plane?
Fine. And just how do you convience us and the CIA, the NSA, the FBI,
and the military intel services that YOUR expertise is so much more
effective than their combined efforts, that if they'd just start
following YOUR orders, they could prevent all this from happening ever
again?
> Or maybe going over to Afghanistan and
> taking out Bin Laden and his training camps once and for all?
Holy Shee-it!! Hey, list, we've got ourselves not only an intelligence
expert, but also a bonafide Armchair general to boot!!! My Gawd, I
think Taliban leaders just took a dump in their shorts!!! Hell, up till
now all they had to worry about was the combined military might of the
USA, NATO, and 90% of the free world. But sweet Jesus, if they gotta
face the mighty Daniel Terp, well, they might as well just quit now and
go back to selling camels!!!
> Or maybe a war where when we win, we don't let the bad guy and his
> army remain intact like desert storm?
Gee, why didn't Gen. Norman think of that? Guess he didn't have the
insight of Daniel "the desert fox" Terp to guide him. Poor guy. All he
had were a lot of big guns, too.
> You gotta be pro-active.
Yeah, like threatening a hunger strike when they pull out their guns on
the airplane, right? That'll show'em! You DO remember the airplane,
don't you? You know, that thing we were all riding on back before we
took the armored camo VW with the bomb racks and the machine gun ring on
the sunroof, and drove it to the Post Office, and parked it next to the
Indians?
> You sit around and wait with a gun in your
> pants and your suicide fantasy is gonna come true real quick.
Already got a "gun" in my pants. ;-) And a rifle leaning next to my
bed, and a pistol in the holster next to it. But don't worry; I promise
I wasn't going after the hijacker armed only with my "gun". It ain't
THAT dangerous, even if I do have a set of flying balls! ;-)
>
> It's not how big the plane is, it's how many planes THERE ARE, because
> if we sit around and wait for them to come after us there's gonna be
> terrorists on all of them.
Hmm. Well, as I can only ride on one of them at a time, I think I'll
concentrate my efforts on one at a time. Tell us, Daniel, how many
planes are you able to fly on at once?
> And the trains and boats and the shopping
> malls, too.
Don't worry; the indians will scalp them all for you.
> But that doesn't matter to you, because you're dead, remember? And Bin
> Laden just sent a hundred more guys over to bomb your wife and your
> kids, and your mom . . .
Well, if I'm dead already, then I guess it won't be bothering me at that
point, right? But wow, those guys sure are odd. A hundred men with
bombs, just to take out one 70-year-old woman with arthritis? I might
not even need my big gun to take on just four of them, if that's the
case. or is this like the old joke, "How many Shiites does it take to
screw in a light bulb?"
> feel justified that you did your part.
>
> Oh, and you showed you had balls.
Um, Daniel, I think you're getting a little obsessed with my balls. Cut
it out; you're giving me the creeps.
> Not really, 21st century battles are pro-active and high tech. The
> idea is to get them BEFORE they get here and kill your mother.
Well, that's all well and good, but the whole premise of this argument
is based on the scenario that your pro-active, high-tech professionals
have failed to do their job (surely due to the lack of your brilliant
leadership) and meanwhile I am stuck, along with the other passengers,
on a plane that is being hijacked to be used as a kamakazi unless
someone does something to stop them. And at that point, my mother is
irrelavant to the argument, unless she is also a passenger and therefore
has also been failed by your "professionals" and is left to fend for
herself. But even a seventy-year-old woman with arthritis can point and
pull a trigger, if it saves her life. Providing she is allowed to carry
her weapon with her in the first place, that is.
> Very funny. You're a clever boy, aren't you?
Hey, what do you expect from a guy who has flying balls?
> Except the bomb detonator
> is in his pocket,
I thought that was where he kept his "gun".
> the UZI is up your ass,
Good! Then I can pull it out and shoot the son-of-a-bitch with it!
> and the VW is parked outside
> your wife's church packed with explosives and a timer set for when
> service lets out.
Well, then the detonator in his pocket isn't going to do him much good
30,000 feet above it, when I shit an Uzi and send him to straight to
hell, now is it? And I guess, on the bright side, at least she won't
get "half" of everything I own after all!!!
> But you don't have to worry, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A GUN!
Yeah. Not as good as having the "Daniel Terp Private Legion of Doom" to
save me, but just in case the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the military, and
the rest of God's own angels fail to keep that terrorist from hijacking
that plane at 30,000 feet after all, at least I've got SOME means of
trying to pro-actively save my own life. Still beats the heck out of
just being one of the unarmed "Sheeple" along for the non-stop express
to Paradise.
>
> And burial insurance, I hope.
Nope. I'll tell'em to send you the bill in my will, though, since it
was you that kept me from having the chance to fight back.
>
> That's right, because in your world the terrorists will all yell "I'm
> a terrorist, and I'm here to kill you!", then wait nicely for you to
> sneak up behind them and put a bullet in their brain.
As opposed to yours, where they are so distracted by all the indians,
the Postal workers, the planes, trains, automobiles, churches, shopping
malls, and so many different types of bombs, machine guns, and
detonators, that they will be happy to die not for Allah, but to just
end the ensuing migrane of having to haul all that shit around with them
all the while worrying that Daniel Terp and the Legion of Doom will
smell them from the other side of the planet and will send the ghost of
Rommel and an army of skeletons to vanquish them from afar?
> Make up your mind, am I a liberal or a fascist?
Why do I have to, when even you can't seem to decide yourself?
>
> Too bad you didn't think to go over to Afghanistan and kill him and
> his buddies on THEIR soil.
Right, I'll put that on the list of things to do for tommorrow. 1) Shop
for groceries. 2) Send birthday card to Mother. 3) Remember to FedEx
that spare surplus Soviet suitcase nuke I bought on eBay over to Osama
Bin Laden. Postage due. That'll show him.
> But I guess that would be too 21st century, wouldn't it? Taking the
> battle to them takes more than one guy.
Unlike you, Daniel, the rest of us don't have our own private armies.
And last time I looked, the government wasn't exactly batting 1000 on
the "stop ALL the terrorists" front. Pretty well, but obviously not
100% sucessful, even with all their resources.
> It takes cooperation, it takes
> resources, and yes, intelligence.
That leaves out your argument, then.
> Never mind that we already have all
> of that sitting around doing nothing, Jay wants to do it cowboy style!
We do? Really? When did "we" receive all of that? You mean the
government? Last time I looked, they weren't "sitting around doing
nothing", and despite all that, they still couldn't stop all the
terrorists. But four armed men; one on each of those planes Tuesday,
might well have. But I guess we'll never know, because folks like YOU
keep the rest of us from having the chance to even try.
> In Jay's world we wait around and let the Terrorists pick the time,
> the place and the way they're going to kill us and our families, then
> we count on his razor sharp wits and lightning fast trigger fingers to
> save the day, just like in the John Wayne movies.
> YEE-HAWW!!!
And in Daniel's world, we wait for "Big Brother" to provide for all our
needs, our safety, our courage, and our very lives. And that's still
what it really all boils down to, folks.
Do we want to count on the government to run our lives, from the teat to
the tomb, and hope like hell that they find it not too much of an
inconvienence to be bothered with saving us from all the evil in the
world, as we trudge along blindly, afraid of our own shadows?
Or do we do what we can to defend ourselves, knowing that despite their
best intention, the authorities do not have the resources to protect us
everywhere, all the time? Do we dare ask to exercise our right to even
self-preservation, even if we run the risk of not being guaranteed 100%
success even at that? This is the same logic behind the idea of not
deploying a national missle defense system because it might not stop
every single missle and might irritate our enemies in the process; that
teaches our children to just give bullies whatever they demand without
resisting; that pours ritalin own the throats of those same children so
they won't question authority and then wonders why they then act insane
and shoot up their schools after overdosing on those same amphetamines
over a long term basis; that demands that we give up our rights and our
liberty in the name of security.
I guess in the end, it doesn't matter if Daniel and I argue this till
hell freezes over. He will never admit that we have the right to defend
ourselves without mocking us for not complying with his will for us all
to bow down to the State and to look to them as our only means of
self-defense. That, despite all his obfuscation, is at the heart of his
argument. I disagree. While I honestly do respect the efforts of those
in our government to fight terrorism, I believe that in the end, we are
each ultimately responsible for our own safety, and that we should have
the right to the means to defend ourselves. Most of you on this list
have already privately expressed your support of our side of this
debate, and I am too tired to keep this going much longer. I've been
awake for almost 3 days straight, watching and worrying for the victims
of the animals that attacked our country. There are people out there
who, as Jon pointed out earlier, need our support and our sympathy, and
this is far more important than whether Daniel and I ever win a decisive
victory in this bitter little debate of ours. Plus, this has gotten SO
far off the topic of military vehicles (with the exception of the
armored, camo VW with the bomb racks and the ring-mounted Uzi machine
gun on the sunroof) that I feel we've carried it about as far as it
needs to go. I still believe I am correct (and most certianly, so does
Daniel) but everyone here can make up their own minds, and hopefully
express those opinions to their legislators. But for the purposes of
the list, I am finished with this. I expect Daniel to most likely want
to have the last word, but don't take my lack of a further response as
giving in to him and what he promotes. For now, however, I need to get
some rest, and I wish to focus on the more important current issues.
Thanks for your patience in all this.
Jay Travis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:58:59 PDT