TSA and Honeymoons

To argue the above point, if you caveat with "according to TSA" then I agree. Otherwise, I have to say "it depends on the applicable laws governing the situation. For example, Colorado hunting laws state that a gun is unloaded (for purposes of transporting in a vehicle) when the chamber is empty. A muzzleloader is unloaded when the cap is removed from the nipple.
However, the governing laws in this instance have already been rehashed enough.
 
This thread is very interesting. If some of the "gun" guys chiming in here had a police officer, during a traffic stop, ask for their gun for the duration of the stop, and then watched as the officer unloaded it, you would have a FIT over safety.

But because it's the TSA and you need the "rant", it's somehow all different......Got it.

The kid was stupid. If you don't take time to understand the law, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Your lack of knowledge on firearms is -- breathtaking. Also your equivalence with LEO and TSA with respect to firearms is further bizarre.

I've advised an LEO that I had a firearm and when he asked to inspect it I said sure, I would prefer if he disarmed me so I didn't handle the weapon. He agreed, took the weapon, removed the mag, checked the chamber, and handed it back to me. All he said was 'thank you'. If the TSA were to come across me at any time or any where I had a weapon, you can bet they would never, ever touch it, or get anywhere close enough that they could be a danger to me or anyone else. No - way.
 
The sufferance is the police know what a gun is and how to use one safely. TSA only know what the outline of a gun looks like.

And I agree the kid screwed up. But there was ZERO chance of the gun going off.
So have the kid come over take out the magazine and tell him next time this is how we want to see it.
 
Your lack of knowledge on firearms is -- breathtaking. Also your equivalence with LEO and TSA with respect to firearms is further bizarre.


No, and no. Enough on this already from our alleged forum "experts".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Why did he need a gun on his Honeymoon? Just to prove a point?

I have no sympathy.
 
Why did he need a gun on his Honeymoon? Just to prove a point?

I have no sympathy.

I re-read the 2nd amendment and failed to find anything about need. I have 50 or so guns, I just want them and want to carry them from time to time, that's all you really need to know. I ain't got to justify having or carrying them to no ****ing body.

The kid did miss an opportunity though. I love throwing my big plastic case open on the TSA desk and watching all the anti gun folks wet their pants and look at me in disgust when the hardware comes out. That's reason enough for me to "need" to take them....
 
The sufferance is the police know what a gun is and how to use one safely. TSA only know what the outline of a gun looks like.


Just the quality level of folks you want on the front lines against terrorists. LOL.
 
I re-read the 2nd amendment and failed to find anything about need. I have 50 or so guns, I just want them and want to carry them from time to time, that's all you really need to know. I ain't got to justify having or carrying them to no ****ing body.

The kid did miss an opportunity though. I love throwing my big plastic case open on the TSA desk and watching all the anti gun folks wet their pants and look at me in disgust when the hardware comes out. That's reason enough for me to "need" to take them....

Wow. You must be a really tough guy.
 
Wow. You must be a really tough guy.


The usual horse**** spewed by the Internet about stuff that's none of their business. Ever think folks might have reasons, real reasons, they aren't going to discuss with you nor are any of your concern, especially on the Internet?

I could give the example of a prominent pharmacist and business owner I knew personally who was shot multiple times in his lifetime (he's deceased now, so I don't mind talking about it) by psychos in his store. He owned the store. No big corporate pharmacy, just him and his .357, late at night. He carried always. He shot three people.

All "clean" shoots. He knew every cop on the local force personally after so many robberies they couldn't keep count. They liked him. He helped everyone in the neighborhood who needed help with pharmaceutical costs, everyone. That man gave away thousands and thousands of dollars to sick folks over 35 years. The cops came QUICK when he hit his panic button under the counter. But not quick enough that he wasn't shot in the hand and the thigh, in two separate shootings. He persevered. He wanted nothing more in life that to run his store. It was his life and livelihood.

He helped my grandparents a number of times. He was a good person. An armed good person. He didn't travel without his firearms after two of his assailants survived and were released back into society.

He sold the store and retired a number of years ago. It's just a ****ty strip mall with no soul now that can't keep tenants. No proud owner outside driving around the parking lot with the street sweeper he bought to keep it neat, clean, and well-maintained. It fell into disrepair and partial blight after he got too old and had to sell.

You see, your attitude is the typical Internet bull**** one. The one that thinks anyone arguing rights is doing it for the reason YOU are. To prove some stupid Internet point.

The reality is, your society and government simply aren't always as civilized as you'd like to believe in your nice suburban home and fine-trimmed lawn.

I would NEVER presume to infringe on that man's RIGHT to defend himself and keep his personal life's dream alive against useless turds who tried to kill him multiple times.

The pharmacy owner cried when you could get the story out of him, about how he wished those idiots wouldn't have come into his store with intent to harm him. He said he would have just given them the damn drugs they needed. If they only hadn't walked in and pointed guns at him, and two of them fired. But he had no remorse about saving his own life.

It wasn't a "bad part of town", it was just open until well after midnight most nights to help moms and dads with sick kids, and folks who needed him. I think he took one vacation in the 20 years or so that I knew him. He gave me my first job with a real paycheck while I was still in high school.

We have no idea why the kid wanted his pistol, and it's none of our business. He doesn't have to answer that question, to you or me or anyone else.

It's not always about being a "tough guy". But that's the BS spewed quite often by the clueless on the Internet who have never had their life threatened. Kid doesn't owe you or anyone else an explanation. And only a fool would think it *always* was because someone wanted to be a "tough guy".

You probably need to get out more and talk to some folks who have had to shoot. You'd realize there's a lot more to many of their stories.
 
The kid probably wanted his pistol to protect his new bride. Maybe that isn't necessary where he was, but carrying reserve fuel isn't always necessary. Being armed to protect your family is classic human male behavior and should be celebrated. It is the stuff that builds and keeps civilization. That we question it shows this civilization is on its way out.
 
I could give the example of a prominent pharmacist and business owner I knew personally who was shot multiple times in his lifetime (he's deceased now, so I don't mind talking about it) by psychos in his store. He owned the store. No big corporate pharmacy, just him and his .357, late at night. He carried always. He shot three people.

My old man was pharmacist and business owner in not the best neighborhood. Yeah, he was robbed and knew the local cops. He just gave the robbers what they wanted (drugs, mostly). Why not, the stuff was insured. Nothing dumber than risking your life for insured property.

I once asked him why he didn't get himself a piece and blast away. Could easily have kept it behind a counter legal as can be. He gave two reasons, the first being potential legalities after the shoot. Just didn't need the hassle. The other was a bit more philosophical. He said he was in the business of making people well, not shooting them.

I myself witnessed a bank robbery a week ago. Afterwards, while waiting for the detectives, I congratulated the tellers. They thought poorly of their actions, especially because the thief got away with a significant quantity of cash. I told them they did very well, the thief was gone, no one was hurt, and the cash insured. Some amateur blasting away could have incurred a less desirable outcome.

The thief will get his in time, they always do. They'll print more cash. The people are irreplaceable.
 
Last edited:
My old man was pharmacist and business owner in not the best neighborhood. Yeah, he was robbed and knew the local cops. He just gave the robbers what they wanted (drugs, mostly). Why not, the stuff was insured. Nothing dumber than risking your life for insured property.

I once asked him why he didn't get himself a piece and blast away. Could easily have kept it behind a counter legal as can be. He gave two reasons, the first being potential legalities after the shoot. Just didn't need the hassle. The other was a bit more philosophical. He said he was in the business of making people well, not shooting them.

I myself witnessed a bank robbery a week ago. Afterwards, while waiting for the detectives, I congratulated the tellers. They thought poorly of their actions, especially because the thief got away with a significant quantity of cash. I told them they did very well, the thief was gone, no one was hurt, and the cash insured. Some amateur blasting away could have incurred a less desirable outcome.

The thief will get his in time, they always do. They'll print more cash. The people are irreplaceable.

Did he ever wonder why he kept getting robbed?

I got robbed once at gunpoint. Gun was in the truck. I haven't made that mistake again.
 
Did he ever wonder why he kept getting robbed?

I got robbed once at gunpoint. Gun was in the truck. I haven't made that mistake again.

He didn't care. The merchandise was injured and no one got hurt. The robbers had no need to shoot at him, he cooperated fully (why not, the stuff was insured). He didn't get robbed frequently enough for it to make that big a deal. Heck, if he did I imagine he would have closed the store and opened a new one elsewhere. At the time they needed drug stores everywhere since they were the only dispensers of drugs.

You start shooting at the thieves and they start shooting back. Thus the guy who dies is the one who isn't the best shot. My old man was wise enough not to start playing that game.
 
He didn't care. The merchandise was injured and no one got hurt. The robbers had no need to shoot at him, he cooperated fully (why not, the stuff was insured). He didn't get robbed frequently enough for it to make that big a deal. Heck, if he did I imagine he would have closed the store and opened a new one elsewhere. At the time they needed drug stores everywhere since they were the only dispensers of drugs.

You start shooting at the thieves and they start shooting back. Thus the guy who dies is the one who isn't the best shot. My old man was wise enough not to start playing that game.

Another client of my lawyer had this happen to him:

He worked at a convenience store. They were robbed. He was in back, and the two other employees up front complied with the instructions of the armed robbers. They allowed themselves to be tied up. He did not. He drew, fired, hitting both of them and they fled.

The armed robbers were found (alive) a couple days later in Chicago with gunshot wounds. They were identified on security cameras at 2 or 3 other stores between their location and Chicago. All the other employees at the other stores were found tied up as well. After they were done with the robbery. They shot their victims. The only ones still alive were the last three at the store of the other client.

Guess who else was wise enough to not do anything. All the dead ones.

Oh wait.
 
He didn't care. The merchandise was injured and no one got hurt. The robbers had no need to shoot at him, he cooperated fully (why not, the stuff was insured). He didn't get robbed frequently enough for it to make that big a deal. Heck, if he did I imagine he would have closed the store and opened a new one elsewhere. At the time they needed drug stores everywhere since they were the only dispensers of drugs.

You start shooting at the thieves and they start shooting back. Thus the guy who dies is the one who isn't the best shot. My old man was wise enough not to start playing that game.

Your dad was lucky. There are plenty of instances where the robbers shot the unarmed attendants.
 
A personal choice to not harm another no matter what is admirable.

But to try to force that on others by legislation and regulation is reprehensible. Defense of your person, loved ones, and yes property is a fundamental right IMO.
 
A personal choice to not harm another no matter what is admirable.

But to try to force that on others by legislation and regulation is reprehensible. Defense of your person, loved ones, and yes property is a fundamental right IMO.

Bingo! We have a winner. :yes:
 
Looks like I have to bring out this again:


Oh, and do keep in mind that the most highly trained personnel in terms of firearm usage, i.e. soldiers and police, usually miss when the heat is on.

Sorry, your firearms are no panacea, and can easily cause as much damage as they create. My own father worked in retail for over 30 years without one and retired whole and without bullet holes.
 
Just because one chooses to go diving off the coast of South Africa wearing a wetsuit made of meat and chum and hasn't gotten attacked, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to wear a shark suit when doing the same thing.

And those people in the videos are morons.
 
Looks like I have to bring out this again:


Oh, and do keep in mind that the most highly trained personnel in terms of firearm usage, i.e. soldiers and police, usually miss when the heat is on.

Sorry, your firearms are no panacea, and can easily cause as much damage as they create. My own father worked in retail for over 30 years without one and retired whole and without bullet holes.

You should know better than try to use a sample size of one.
 
And those people in the videos are morons.

I don't know that the test subjects are morons. I think that they probably do represent typical reactions of average amateurs. But the set up seems contrived and unrealistic. You have a highly trained police officer acting as the assailant, and knows that there is a test subject in the room and further knows exactly where the test subject is in the room. Additionally, the test subject is placed in the middle of the room, where he/she is penned in and can take no corrective action. So, the "assailant" (again, a trained officer who knows exactly what to do, and that the whole set up is for play and not for real) comes in, yells, fires at the speaker, then immediately turns and fires on the test subject. I am not sure that is a realistic test of the ability of the test subject in general to defend against an attack. I will grant that adrenalin, surprise, and lack of training will have a significant impact on the ability of the average person to respond and reach a positive outcome. But often, they will have some element of surprise on their side, and the assailant won't have professional training. And if this was live fire, I am sure that trained officer playing the part of the officer would have some nerves as well.
 
Sorry, your firearms are no panacea, and can easily cause as much damage as they create.

Hopefully, to the perpetrator. :yes:
First rule of gun-fighting: Bring enough gun.
Second rule: Seek immediate cover. People who run don't stand a chance.
 
And if you can't get to cover, at least get to concealment!
 
No doubt the supermen who populate this forum would take all the proper actions when confronted with an armed assailant and would emerge victorious from whatever violence ensued. The rest of us are just normal humans, who have adrenal glands and human reactions that are often considerably less than perfect in hindsight.
 
Well if we don't have the cognitive power for fighting we certainly shouldn't be flying stuff.
 
For TSA to tell it was "technically loaded" means they had to open the case and inspect the gun.

No, you can see if it's loaded in the X-ray machine.

Dunno Texas law, but if it says that a gun is only loaded when there's a round up the spout, then he's got a pretty good defense. Obviously nobody told him what the TSA considers to be loaded and unloaded, and he was trying to be compliant.

I'll bet whatever burger-flipper caught him gets some kind of attaboy or promotion.
 
No doubt the supermen who populate this forum would take all the proper actions when confronted with an armed assailant and would emerge victorious from whatever violence ensued. The rest of us are just normal humans, who have adrenal glands and human reactions that are often considerably less than perfect in hindsight.

And I was recognized even though I wasn't wearing my costume! Look, just because you haven't prepared for something, and might react by evacuating your bowels and bladder, doesn't mean everyone else hasn't or will. I've had enough happen to me my adrenaline doesn't even kick in any more. And I know I'm not the only one.
 
Why did he need a gun on his Honeymoon? Just to prove a point?

I have no sympathy.

Dunno about you, but I've never seen anything showing that people on their honeymoon are immune from violent crime, and it's a husband's responsibility to protect his bride.

If he DID need a handgun on his honeymoon, it's too late to go home and get it.
 
My old man was pharmacist and business owner in not the best neighborhood. Yeah, he was robbed and knew the local cops. He just gave the robbers what they wanted (drugs, mostly). Why not, the stuff was insured. Nothing dumber than risking your life for insured property.



I once asked him why he didn't get himself a piece and blast away. Could easily have kept it behind a counter legal as can be. He gave two reasons, the first being potential legalities after the shoot. Just didn't need the hassle. The other was a bit more philosophical. He said he was in the business of making people well, not shooting them.



I myself witnessed a bank robbery a week ago. Afterwards, while waiting for the detectives, I congratulated the tellers. They thought poorly of their actions, especially because the thief got away with a significant quantity of cash. I told them they did very well, the thief was gone, no one was hurt, and the cash insured. Some amateur blasting away could have incurred a less desirable outcome.



The thief will get his in time, they always do. They'll print more cash. The people are irreplaceable.


That's a lovely story. Truly touching. (Not.)

Did any of the robbers shoot your dad? Twice?

How do you suppose his attitude would have changed if he was shot and survived? And then shot again?

Would he have armed himself or closed up shop?
 
Steingar:

I carry a gun routinely, because I believe that I may need it.

You don't carry a gun, because you don't believe that you might need it.

I can be wrong every day for the next 40 years.

You can only be wrong ONCE.
 
No doubt the supermen who populate this forum would take all the proper actions when confronted with an armed assailant and would emerge victorious from whatever violence ensued. The rest of us are just normal humans, who have adrenal glands and human reactions that are often considerably less than perfect in hindsight.


And your point is?

Do you train for flying? Did you ever have an adrenaline dump flying? Were you taught how to handle it?

And just why do you need an assault airplane? Why don't you just sit in the back and let the professionals fly?

You don't need an airplane. Tough guy.

See how this works?
 
Back
Top