I'm a Democrat. I love guns. No place better to learn how to use 'em than U.S. Army Infantry school I might add...

This is true about your average Democrat. However, the average democrats are not running this government right now.

As a pilot, not as a Democrat or a Republican, I hate it when people can't or refuse to read. Here is the first 4-5 paragraphs of the editorial....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs......


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The most important part of the editorial is what I have hilighted. To paraphrase, it says that money has been diverted from the training program to hire more supervisory staff FOR THE SAME PROGRAM!!!

The guy is diverting money from your training as FFDO's to hire supervisors. He said he was trying to create jobs, right? You have a job with or without the FFDO training, right? The economy is shedding jobs at a clip of 500,000 per month, right? Maybe a few furloughed pilots can get off the street and supervise for the FFDO program. Are you guys really that dense about everything, or is it just certain topics?

We as pilots are trained to trust but verify. Think. Use your head. Don't just simply react. If you are at cruise at FL 350 and your N1 gague drips to 0 do you shut the engine down right away? Or, do you check to see if the other engine instruments look normal?

Some of you guys need to use the same skills you use as a professional pilot when you read the newspaper. Relax, no one hates guns. No one said anything about taking your gun away from you. And quite frankly, we and he (Obama) have got bigger fish to fry. Get over yourselves and stop being so paranoid. Such paranoia make me wonder if you really are suited to carry a gun. :confused: (Not that I have any say in it, or have the desire to do so.)


Now with that being said, I am sure the thread is closed. Either because the moderators choose to close it, or no one has the cahonas to respond. (Even though I don't have a gun.) I'm sorry moderators. :D


New K Now

Got that right...we finally have above average Democrats (at least in the White house, I dont much like Pelosi...but I suppose that is a different thread).

Gun program for pilots set for expansion, officials insist

Backers take exception to inaccurate editorial

Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, March 24, 2009


The Obama administration has no plans to end a program that trains commercial airline pilots to carry guns and thwart terrorist attacks, and in fact is seeking to expand resources for oversight and training, government officials and pilots organizations say.
"We're looking for new resources and more money to bring in for next year. The benefits of the program are obvious. The pilots are an intrinsic part of our whole aviation-security strategy and one of our layers of security," said Robert Bray, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, which oversees the program.
The Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program was created after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has since trained 12,000 pilots on how to carry weapons and defend their aircraft against an attack. Among the planned expansions, Mr. Bray said, is the construction of a new center in Dallas, where armed pilots can receive recurring training.
Mr. Bray and the pilots groups disputed a March 17 editorial in The Washington Times entitled "Guns on a plane: Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns," which suggested that recent discussions about spending some of the program's money for supervisory jobs amounted to killing the program.
"That is completely false," said Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the largest pilots union in the U.S. and Canada, with 53,000 members.
After the editorial appeared, Capt. Prater said, his group called a meeting with Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials and were reassured the new administration supports the program.
"We're not seeing anything other than cooperation, and certainly the fact that as soon as this opinion piece came out, ALPA and TSA met immediately, and from what we've determined, there is no truth to the fears that were put forth in that opinion piece," Capt. Prater said.
ASSOCIATED PRESS A Transportation Security Administration instructor trains a pilot to disarm a potential hijacker during a weapon-retention class at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, in Brunswick, Ga.

The Times' editorial pages recently were brought under new management and operate separately from the newsroom. Editorial writers produce content that is not reported or overseen by newsroom employees.
"The Editorial Department has been in transition these last few weeks. We're aware of the error and are investigating what happened so we can learn from the mistake and not repeat it," Associate Publisher Richard Amberg Jr. said.
Homeland Security officials and pilots say that the program has proven to be an important security layer and that they are interested in making the program more efficient.
"We look forward to working with the Obama administration to improve the management and funding of the program to make it what Congress originally intended it would be," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, an organization that lobbies Congress on behalf of the program.
The editorial cited information from pilots it did not name, claiming that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes has "slowed significantly" and that the "approval process has stalled out."
Mr. Mackett said the approval process did slow last fall during the final days of the Bush administration, but it was before the election and possibly a result of dwindling funds at the end of the 2008 fiscal year.
The editorial also said the Obama administration recently "diverted some $2 million from the pilot-training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots."
However, pilots are supervised by the airlines, not Homeland Security, and Mr. Bray added that no funds were diverted; rather, he said, additional money is being sought to manage gun-training programs.
__________________

Wow!
 

Didn't think all the anti gun rhetoric would come out. If the line of thought is that guns, including uzi's and 50 cals, are dangerous and are used to kill people, then, in the name of parity, ban hatchets, like the one used in the Northeast to kill someone a few weeks ago. And if the argument comes to the "Axe's are useful and not dangerous in the hands of criminals like guns", ask that poor dead SOB who wore one in his skull. Guns, including uzi's, are only as dangerous as the hands they are in. And I would rather have one in my hand when the first robber breaks thru the front door than the axe.

Hey "OntheMissed"!...whats up?

...are you flying yet?

Ummm, I can use a hatchet to many useful things. The same cannot be said for an automatic machine gun or 50 cal rifle. By your logic we would have to ban kitchen knives, box cutters, tire irons, hammers, baseball bats, meat hooks, pillows, cellaphane, & the list go's on and on. Why? Because all of these things can be used to kill. Bad argument.

Considering it's already illegal for felons, the insane, and minors to own guns, I don't really know what additional regulation is necessary for "responsible" gun ownership.

Hell, it were about "saving lives", you'd be better served lowering the speed limit to 40mph, enforce it with a mechanical engine governor, and have mandatory jail time for anyone caught texting or using a cell phone while driving. Easier too, because driving ISN"T a constitutional right.

You're apparently missing the most obvious link in "new logic" - If it's in print (or an the Internet), it must be true!

:D