Given my friend’s experience and that of Mr Gilmore it would seem that Mr. Gilmore might have been denied boarding either for a reason other than not having an ID (ie: he challenged the authority figure, who decided to not let him board – which brings up an issue of power usurping the law, among others) or the person/people that did not allow him to board are ignorant of the actual laws and regulations they are tasked to uphold. Both of these seem to me to be very serious issues.

The issue to me is not the security itself, but the way in which it is upheld, which is often arbitrary and gives those in a position of power (ie: with the gun) all the rights, whether they follow the letter of the law or not, under the guise of national security, safety, do it for the children, etc.

Sir,

Your diatribe is succinctly written and well thought out,
just as a socialist propaganda piece should be. But just
like such a propaganda piece, it is filled with many
omissions of truth and fact.

It is statistically proven that an armed populace lowers
the crime rate and therefore would also most likely lower
the terrorist attack rate. From a logical stand point
which is liable to yield more victims in an attack by
terrorists bearing guns, a restaurant full of unarmed and
defenseless people, or a restaurant full of armed and
prepared people? Unless it is packed with a lunchtime
rush of the national coalition for the blind I would vote
without exception for the latter.

It is both a fundamental and God given right for man to
to defend his life and the lives of others, as well as
his property from those that would do him harm. The God I
refer to is Jesus Christ, not yours as obviously for your
diatribe to appear legitimate Mohammed would have had to
fight all his battles with bitter diatribe and oratory
narration, not weapons.

It is also proven by history that for every improvement
in weaponry or the lack thereof, that there is
progressive one-upmanship; “You get rocks, we get clubs,
you get spears, we get arrows, you get fire, we get
boiling oil…” Therefore it would appear that the idea
of “you do without guns, we will not” inevitably leads
to “we have guns and you do not, therefore we are taking
over” or do you not know or really understand history of
any kind? It is also a historical fact that in any place
where the people are disarmed, the government has seized
totalitarian control and enslaved the populace to their
whims. Not in this country Sir, not as long as breath
flows through my body and my person and arms can be used
to defend those rights granted by all-mighty God.

Obviously you are a man that has never had to deal with
the dangers of ever more greedy government, high crime,
lawless law enforcement, or good old fashioned terrorism
in its true form. That or your turban is wound way to
tight for proper oxygenating blood flow.

The only “right” that should be REPEALED is the
assumptive right that people like you think that you have
to speak for people like me. You have no such right, my
right to be armed and self-preserving is not up for
REPEAL, it was granted to me by God, not by the
Constitution or the government. The founding fathers
stated that the Constitution was used to illustrate but
not enumerate just some of the rights granted to all men
by God, not by government.

If you are unhappy with the idea of an armed populace
here in America then move back to Mecca, we all know that
there are no guns or explosives used there, right?

Sincerely yours,

A True and Free American

most terrorist never use their own name or purchase their guns legally anyway, how many terrorists have they found that actually had a legit gun license.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.
The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Mr. Afeef apparently doesn’t care that this wouldn’t be a problem if every citizen was encouraged to carry arms for the defense of himself and his neighbors. Typical for these pro-statist groups, Afeef ignores the millions of Americans who use guns to successfully defend themselves against criminal assault every year.

…”those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians.”

Well, there is a stunning argument in favor of disarming the government, since they are the ones who best fit Gingrich’s description. (Repeated violations of the Constitution, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Ruby Ridge and Waco all immediately come to mind.)