Air Marshall offensive Knife

[Greg Walker]

Bill -

Gotcha nose

Yes, such things are critcal, serious, important, and valid

But so is laughing, walking in the rain, holding one's child close, and yes, even watching a Steven Seagal movie.

Take a break, dude

And a moment to smell the roses -

GW
KU

PS: Enjoyed both your posts. Points well made, and well taken

 

[W.S. DeWeese]

Thank you, Mr. Walker. I have enjoyed the exchange and think we are probably far closer in agreement than not.

Bill

 

[Esav Benyamin]

By the way, now that we have a Federal Air Marshal Service to protect us from aircraft hijackings by terrorists who are probably laughing "been there, done that' and have moved on to plan other interruptions in our placid existence, who's guarding reservoirs, atomic power plants, and national monuments? All of these, along with railroads and waterways have been identified as targets of interest to our enemies.

 

[Greg Walker]

My old man's from Trenton

All such potential targets were long ago identified as such by the appropriate folks...who were then ignored, made fun of, or told to get a life.

And the truth is we can't as we're too big, and not the kind of society that inflicts the kind of govermental controls over its population(s) to seriously effect the endstate of protecting such physical hard targets.

Price we pay for being who and what we are.

However, we are way good at doing something other countries in this fight have and are - in many cases - doing. But we do it better because it IS in our national heritage and bent.

We hunt folks down like no one else on earth can do...and when we find them we "bring 'em to justice"...American Justice...which - if one is from Texas or Alaska - translates as at the end of a rope or barrel of a gun (during our formative years as a pioneer society...remember the pioneers? Now THEY took no crap if you came to town and acted stupid )

Al-Qlowna world view is radical Islamist history repeating itself (Trivia Pursuit - who can find/quote in Lawrence's "7 Pillars of Wisdom" where and what he wrote on Wahabi-ism and it's cycle of self-destructive violence and oppression in the Middle East? Whoever finds must post within 24 hours...if no correct answer I'll tack it up here)...those who fail to study history and learn from it are doomed to relive its past mistakes and failures, as Santana wrote.

So, we do what we can for homeland security - which more than anything else means teaching ourselves NOT to live in fear (on our knees) - and we go about teaching UBL & Company to live on his/theirs.

The BEST defense is one heckofa OFFENSE

GW
KU

 

[biogon]

Mr. Walker, sir,

I am anxiously awaiting the correct answer to your exam question regarding the cyclical pattern of violence in the Middle East.

Respectfully yours,

-j

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Originally posted by Red Devil


The reason for the manuals is my friend is Canadian, so therefore no automatics allowed.

This is what is really amazing to me -- the stupidity to which the world has now sunk.

The guy is going to be an ARMED AIR MARSHALL -- but geez-louise the Canadian government can't let him have one of those evil automatic knives!!!! Think of the danger everyone would then be in!!!!

This just is one more sickening illustration of how moronic the world is in this panic about terrorism. I presume this guy will also be armed with a GUN on the flights, right? If he's going to have a gun, what difference would it make even if he were carrying a 10 inch chef's knife? Is this just about the pathetic and stupid taboo about automatic knives?

The quote makes it seem as though up there it is a logical and rational understanding: "oh, the Canadians, they don't allow automatic knives" as though the possible *reason* must be just common sense knowledge. Well, as most of you I'm sure know, there is no common sense behind banning automatic knives. I don't own any of them, but like those who do, I understand that nothing about an automatic knife makes it any more dangerous or menacing than a manual knife. Are people ever gonna learn?!

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Originally posted by Matteo Escobar
I think that as long as you don't do something for the COPS to give you a pat down carry whatever you want. If you actually had to use it for a legitimate reason, nothing else would matter. I have never broken the law, and I have never been patted down. Do you see my reasoning? How are they going to find the knife and prosecute you unless you have broken the law?

I understand what you're saying, and to an extent I agree. I have been in that kind of a situation, where I carried what I was not "supposed" to carry (by law, anyway, if not by morality) and the rationale was that I'd care more about surviving the threat, first, and *then* about answering for exactly how I did and what means I used.

But tell that to the guy who came from Florida, I think it was, to New York. He didn't have a permit in NY for a gun he was legally allowed to own in Florida. He used it to defend his 2-year-old son's life and now he is facing charges for possessing the gun. It's now a big hassle for him. Does that kind of a law mean that you get only one shot at using a prohibited weapon to save your own life, because after you survive, you're simply going to jail for having the tool necessary to do the job??

Unfortunately, it sure looks like it.

I can see a person charged with such a "crime" as having an unlicensed gun (or a banned knife) that clearly saves his life put on the stand at trial. Just how could a prosecutor look you in the eye and tell you that you did wrong to have the tool that you used to save your own life from someone who would otherwise have taken it? Do they stand there and tell you that rather than have the right defense, you should have just capitulated to the attack?:

Prosecutor Dumbo: Mr. Smith, what were you doing with this evil-looking, deadly assault knife, this..."MOD Razorback"?? Don't you know this knife is banned here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because it is SO lethal?!

Mr. Smith: Well, that's exactly why it saved my life!

Prosecutor Dumbo: But the law says you should not have had it and that's why you're on trial here today, Mr. Smith, because *YOU* feel you are somehow above the laws of this commonwealth! Are you, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith: If I had not had that knife to kill the perpetrator of the attack against me and my wife, who spent two weeks in the hospital recovering from her injuries, the two of us would almost surely have been murdered. Is that preferable to you, Mr. Prosecutor, over my having a "lethal assault knife"?

Prosecutor Dumbo: Well, at least you could have died like a law-abiding citizen! Now you're just a criminal.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Originally posted by Esav Benyamin
By the way, now that we have a Federal Air Marshal Service to protect us from aircraft hijackings by terrorists who are probably laughing "been there, done that' and have moved on to plan other interruptions in our placid existence, who's guarding reservoirs, atomic power plants, and national monuments? All of these, along with railroads and waterways have been identified as targets of interest to our enemies.

Check out www.aopa.org and you should be able to find articles on their site dealing with the resistance of nuclear power plants to attack.

Granted, some attacks could possibly be conducted from *within*, but there was a detailed article I read, which quoted respected experts who studied the effect of even a FULLY LOADED LARGE JET AIRCRAFT traveling over 300 miles per hour impacting a typical nuclear facility. There is virtually ZERO CHANCE of penetration. The article even stipulated that the burn rates of the fuel -- even if a full capacity load of it were ignited in the presence of the nuclear fuels in the reactor -- do not provide enough energy to ignite the materials. The temperatures to which they would have to be brought would simply not be met. Also, there was talk that all that would happen to the shell of the reactor would be "polishing" of the concrete outer layer. This was by a high-speed collision from a loaded jetliner.

Please, let's try to avoid the panicked, no-reason, only-fear response of the sheeple here. We don't live in a "Passenger 57" world where a stray bullet will rip open the side of an airliner. These things have been debunked but people still write to the newspaper letters pages with overblown fears of them. I have also seen it said that the amount of any typical chemical that would have to be dumped into a typical reservoir to cause casualties through the water supply would require TRUCKS and TRUCKS full of contaminant. We ARE talking about tainting a supply of usually many millions of gallons.

In answer to your comments... the WORLD is a vulnerable place. There are miles and miles of roads, train tracks, pipelines, there are thousands and thousands of restaurants, movie theaters, arcades, retail stores, buses... Of COURSE these cannot all be protected. We live every day with the reality that anything anywhere can be attacked, if only there is someone who WISHES to. What can you do? The world can never be baby-proofed. That's life. That's why you really have to have a willingness to REMOVE from the planet any transgressors, with extreme prejudice. You cannot suffer a threat to live amongst your people, or it will rot away their lives. But you must always be REactive, because you have millions of little and big vulnerabilities everywhere you look.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Originally posted by JCHH

In addition:

- Is one assuming (or is it stated somewhere) that there is only one marshall aboard each plane and not more than one? . . .

I think knowing the answer to the latter will give a better idea as to what kind of knife a marshall should carry (but didn't someone already mention they are given Delicas?).

However, to me, the major question is that if a marshall is able to carry a firearm, then pulling his/her knife would most likely mean s/he has somehow lost that firearm, or are marshall's trained to draw knives first? Do they allow marshalls to shoot in airplanes?

How about carrying a throwing or ballistic knife? Or how about a pen gun?
-j

Dude, at this point (and for a while to come) there is NOT NEARLY EVEN A SINGLE AIR MARSHAL ON EVERY U.S. FLIGHT (domestic OR international), so forget all about having a TEAM or paired PARTNERS there to tackle terrorist hijackers. The biggest lie perpetrated on the American public these days is that we are now protected by a corps of Air Marshals just in case the illiterate crack-addict security screener misses the Makarov in the bowling bag of Hassim... There is a major cost factor involved: where the hell are we going to get the money to pay to have at least one marshal on each of SEVERAL *THOUSAND* flights every single day?! The only decent solution at this point is to arm the pilots, and even that is a long way away, it seems. There HAS to be a pilot (two, actually) on every plane or it's simply not flying. Put a gun in the cockpit for them to use to deal with a cockpit breach (not nearly as complicated as some naysayers make it sound) and who needs an air marshal?

And did you say *throwing knife*?! Are you thinking of these being thrown by an air marshal at a hijacker? On a plane?? I wonder if you've been watching too many movies.

 

[maximus6]

If you do end up buying a fixed blade knife, I would have to agree with the man who posted before me…with the right carry system, you won’t know you have it. I would check out Survival Sheath systems. I am very happy with them and I have many shoulder rigs from them. They don’t slip and are comfortable. Check ‘em out.