YES! You da Man, PUKELOSER!
(you should consider a name change though ;-)
I believe the ammo you refer to is called 'frangible' ammo.
I think the law should be that if you pass a fingerprint test that proves you are who you
are and you have 9mm or less frangible ammo, then you should be able to carry on
aircraft.
I hate the part about the fingerprints, but hell, as we know, a 767 can do a lot of
damage so we don't want terrorists walking on board with guns. But even if they do get
on board, they won't know how many average joes around them are also armed. they are no
longer dealing with a bunch of captive sheep at that point.
Dakota content:
I avoid flying because I hate being unarmed. I drive my Dak all over the western half of
the US to avoid flying. Its fun to drive!
Marty
Pukeloser@aol.com wrote:
>
> HEY ED!!
>
> It is your "gun nuts" that have been warning that something like this could
> happen. Unfortunately the ignorant members of the population just called us
> paranoid and said it would never happen!!
>
> Really dispicable of you to take advantage of the death of thousands to make
> a pathetic attempt to push your political agenda! especially considering that
> guns had nothing to do with it!
>
> Maybe if the sky ranger program had been beefed up there would've been a well
> trained, armed protector on some of those flights!
>
> By the way, the sky rangers use pulvorizing ammo which will penetrate a human
> but not an airplane fuselage (just in case you didn't know).
>
> If you don't like guns you can move to a country where individuals cant have
> them Like AFGHANASTAN
>
> John S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:47 EDT