Has anybody been to this website?

imported post

http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

I stumbled across it the other day and I remember seeing a few of their pictures blown up (as in resized) on the wall of the dominion shooting range in VA. If you click the various links at the bottom you'll see different pictures. Some of them are really good, and others are a little out there.

imported post

I believe this sight is somewhat 'known' in the gun cyber world. I am curious, What pics do you consider 'out there'?

imported post

Yeah Oleg Volk does that site and he does good work, he posts/moderates over on THR if you're interested.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

I believe this sight is somewhat 'known' in the gun cyber world. I am curious, What pics do you consider 'out there'?

Click to expand...

worst. idea. ever. If passengers were allowed to carry loaded weapons on planes, it would be even easier for terrorists to hijack them. All it takes is one bullet to shoot through a window and rip the cabin apart.

imported post

Um no, it takes more than a bullet hole to rip a plane apart. That situation really isn't a concern of armed FDO and Air Marshalls. You would have depressurization but not explosive depressurization.

imported post

mercutio545 wrote:

worst. idea. ever. If passengers were allowed to carry loaded weapons on planes, it would be even easier for terrorists to hijack them. All it takes is one bullet to shoot through a window and rip the cabin apart.

Click to expand...

James Bond movies probably aren't the best source of information about guns and planes.

Airliners already have over a square foot of holes in the fuselage, so another, less than half inch diameter, hole isn't going to decompress the plane.

I think it would be a good idea to allow passengers to carry on airliners, since the possibility that they will be facing several armed passengers should give any terrorist pause. But realistically it is not going to happen without a major shift in the mentality of the American people.

imported post

mercutio545 wrote:

worst. idea. ever. If passengers were allowed to carry loaded weapons on planes, it would be even easier for terrorists to hijack them. All it takes is one bullet to shoot through a window and rip the cabin apart.

Click to expand...

HAHAHA!!!!! :lol:Someone watches too much TV.

With a terrorist willing to die to kill, you have two choices.

1. Stop them from getting to their target.

2. Kill them first.

I like choice #2 the best.

imported post

Well it's still too much work. There would still be a firefight, and I'd rather have to wait an hour and have TSA give me a full cavity search than be on a plane where just anybody can carry. It would be so much easier of a target because not all terrorists are on watch lists or have ANY record whatsoever.

imported post

I found 2 interesting articles on this issue.

[size="-1"]http://www.equipped.com/real_security.rtf[/size]
Guns, Goldfinger, and sky marshals

From Doug Ritter,
"Also, just to set the record straight, bullet holes will not result in "explosive decompression." Aircraft have outflow valves that regulate pressurization, there's much more than needed. The fuselage is not a 100% sealed pressure vessel, it is always leaking. Even a slew of bullet holes won't make much difference, the outflow valves will simply close up some. Boeing has extensive experience with bullet holes in aircraft fuselages. B-29s bombing Japan regularly took .50 caliber bullets through their pressurized fuselages without any harm whatsoever.

The triple-pane passenger windows are plastic and won't blow out if they get a bullet hole or two in them. The aircraft structure is a "ripstop" design to stop any small cracks or holes that might occur from spreading. This is not to say that a bullet couldn't wreak some havoc among some aircraft systems, but that's one of the reasons that aircraft have redundant systems, so if some fail or are impaired, there are alternatives and back-ups."

imported post

But you have no problem walking around in regular life where just anyone can carry? Edit to add:
There are plenty of circumstances where terrorists can wreak havoc with firearms but we still have the right to carry. I think if cockpits and flight systems were properly secured and armored armed passengers becomes less of an issue.

imported post

mercutio545 wrote:

Well it's still too much work. There would still be a firefight, and I'd rather have to wait an hour and have TSA give me a full cavity search than be on a plane where just anybody can carry. It would be so much easier of a target because not all terrorists are on watch lists or have ANY record whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Wow, you are really giving TSA a lot of credit there.

I have never bought the argument that freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. The proper answer to terrorism is to not only legalize carry by passengers, but to vigorously encourage it. Then airline security (preferably private, not TSA morons) could concentrate on the threats guns can't help with: bombs. Imagine. No more being treated like a criminal every time you want to travel. Some idiot wants to hijack your plane? Not in a plane with 4 or 5 random armed passengers.

Instead of using more freedom to get more safety, we have the opposite. You are less free to travel, and in the event your wonderful government screws up (again) and lets a hijacker get onto a plane, your only choice is to wait helplessly for your government's jet fightersto come and kill you. Sorry, but that's not "waiting in line for an hour to be safer".

I've explained this to others and get the same response, "That's crazy!"

My best reply is this: Imagine you are on one of those jets on 9-11-01: you would've wanted a gun in your hand, period.

I don't believe anyone who says otherwise.

imported post

Oh I wasn't trying to give TSA any credit at all. They're a bunch of incompetent, underpaid *insert expletive here* who want to exercise whatever authority they have. I went to drop off one of my stepmoms friends from church at the SeaTac airport (she is from Nigeria) because she was going to go to California to visit her family. She was instantly flagged and we had to spend a good 10 extra minutes getting searched. Seriously, she was so sweet that she didn't even know what was going on, she was laughing about it.

And I wasn't trying to say that I WOULDN'T carry if it was legal, you bet I would. Heck I'd probably carry my mossberg on there if it was legal. I'm just saying that it might be an easier opportunity because TSA may not know who's bad and who isn't. I mean someone could walk up to the front bathroom, shoot the deadbolt to the cabin and kill the pilots. I'm sure that could be done before anybody could react to it (just a scenario).

imported post

To insult TSA officers as a whole, for actions committed by one or a few is unwarranted, and prejudicial. Having enjoyed the ability to fly about this country, and having interaction with TSA officers, I have not had a problem. There are probably a few sour apples, but that is true with any occupation. But I hope this forum does not sink to a stereotypical mindset - one that we lament and repine about daily as we are labeled "gun nuts."

Watch the episode of MythBusters that addressed this explosive decompression theory. Integral failure did not occur until a cone explosive was used! A 9mm or .45 round is not going to cause a crash like at the end of Goldfinger!

An armed law abiding citizen is the pillar and mainstay of society. I do not fear them. Enemy combatants (why call these people terrorists?) on 9/11 would have been foiled if there had been armed American citizens. The planes may have crashed, but the human and material cost would have been dramatically lower, and a clear message would have been sent worldwide: a jacketed hollowpoint is a great terrorist eliminator.

To sum up:

Be respectful to the TSA. You dont see Osama taking a plane every hour on the hour do you?

Be educated on ballistics concerning airplanes before making outrageous statements.

imported post

Collier4385 wrote:

Enemy combatants (why call these people terrorists?) on 9/11

Click to expand...

I call them terrorists because thats what they were. Anybody who says that the 9/11 terrorists were, in fact, "not" terrorists clearly doesn't remember what happened.

imported post

Collier4385 wrote:

I do not fear them. Enemy combatants (why call these people terrorists?) on 9/11 would have been foiled if there had been armed American citizens. The planes may have crashed, but the human and material cost would have been dramatically lower, and a clear message would have been sent worldwide: a jacketed hollowpoint is a great terrorist eliminator.

Click to expand...

???

imported post

As has been said (and it bears repeating) a few hundred or so bullet holes will not bring down an aircraft. They are built a lot sturdier than people think. Add to this, that the systems are not simply redundant, they are triple redundant!

The easiest way to secure an aircraft is to allow anyone with a CCW to fly concealed. In this, there is a huge tactical advantage. Since a CCW holder does go through an extensive background check, there should be no problem with letting a person onboard versus someone who is carrying openly, who may not have the requisite security checks.

Regardless, the real issue here is that there are people, apparently on this board, who have no problem with open carry, unless it is on a plane. To that, I say, hogwash! If it is good for walking into the mall, it is good for walking onto an aircraft.

imported post

Amnesia is not something from which I suffer. It was an act of war, hence enemy combatants. We can discuss it all day long, but that would prove to be fruitless. Political correctness is something I do not subscribe to, period.

But to return to the point of this topic, it is a great website, and I see nothing "out there." Catastrophic rapid depressurization has been debunked.

imported post

Last I checked we were fighting the Global War on Terrorism, and terrorism is committed by terrorists, just saying. Now I rule myself off topic.
Getting back on topic, I think this poster is cool.

This species is found only in the free world.


I think VCDL should send this one to the DOI.
Wolves, pumas and bears, oh my!

imported post

Does this make people who spread information about drugs, people who promote a change in drug law, people who use drugs, and people who sell drugs enemy combatants because we have a war on drugs???

How are we defining wars against 'entities' without political boundaries?

Also, the species is not 'rifleman' but 'god' given that he can use force to his approval versus force to his disproval...


Anyway,
a lot of the pictures from that site seem overly obnoxious and pretentious (not necessarily from a neutral gun-ownership anti-government-regulation perspective, even), but I enjoy the cunningness (of dubious originality) of many of them.

imported post

Pwning the Papacy wrote:

Anyway,
a lot of the pictures from that site seem overly obnoxious and pretentious (not necessarily from a neutral gun-ownership anti-government-regulation perspective, even), but I enjoy the cunningness (of dubious originality) of many of them.

Click to expand...

Research Oleg's history, it might explain his point of view on a lot of things. Personally, I enjoy most of his work.

LoveMyCountry