List of places no one should be allowed to possess a firearm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

I am suddenly more interested in what you do for a living?

---

Airline Captain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Really....one of the dumbest arguments you've seen on this? Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention. All it would take is one careless person carrying and one motivated terrorist, psyco, whatever to seize the moment.

---

And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.

We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).

Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).

Yea, and dont you guys have a firearm in the cabin with you? But those of us flying in coach cannot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.

We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).

Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).

---

I completely agree, and can only add that while I know several truly awesome cops, I still would not trust my life to them. Personal responsibility includes my health and safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

Yea, and dont you guys have a firearm in the cabin with you? But those of us flying in coach cannot?

---

Dude.....then walk or ride a bus. We'll be ok without you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

I am suddenly more interested in what you do for a living?

---

RMAC757
https://www.ar-15.co/images/tf_ideal...ser-online.png
Drives the Blue French Bus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Dude.....then walk or ride a bus. We'll be ok without you.

---

Man I always like quotes like this! How many airlines have declared bankruptcy? And needed bailouts to continue operating? How much effect will the next "incident" on an aircraft have? And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers. Its what the military calls a "target rich environment" for whackos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.

We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).

Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).

---

I think your trying to create an argument with me that doesn't exist. To be honest I'm not even sure what point your trying to make with Homer Simpson analogy. Yes, there are many, many well trained civilians and equally as many poorly trained LEO's. Your not seeing the big picture. This is about creating a standard for the lowest common denominator, not persecuting well trained, law abiding citizens. Risking the chance of ND's, poorly secured weapons, argument/fights, whatever aboard the plane with your average Joe who took his CCW on the internet a couple weeks earlier isn't worth it. There are a few of us on this board that see what happens aboard aircraft on daily basis. Do you have any idea what happens when we get stuck for a couple hours off the gate? People loose their shit.....every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

Man I always like quotes like this! How many airlines have declared bankruptcy? And needed bailouts to continue operating? How much effect will the next "incident" on an aircraft have? And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers. Its what the military calls a "target rich environment" for whackos.

---

Your proving my point every time you type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention.

---

Alot.

The reasoning for weapons retention for uniformed police officers is based on the regular carry of an exposed weapon, which is visible and accessible to anyone behind, to the side, or otherwise in close proximity. When your job has you rolling around on the ground while trying to subdue a subject, or working crowd control at an Occupy style rally, knowing where your weapons are and keeping them away from others is pretty important.

While, in training, we work on regaining weapons if you happen to lose one, the emphasis is obviously on not losing them in the first place.

Ground fighting is also an important part of training in LE. Would anyone like to consider the difficulties of ground fighting in the aisle or between seats on a full airplane? Again, the emphasis is on not going to the deck, and if you go, make sure you are on top. There are a lot of hard, sharp items down there. You can use them if you are in a position of dominance. They can be used against you if you are not.

There are many difficult environments to work in, and anyone who thinks that a gun will get you out of more trouble than it can get you into is just fooling themselves. For a citizen who carries concealed, use of a firearm should really be considered a weapon of last resort. Something along the lines of "If I don't pull this trigger, someone will die or be seriously injured. I have no other choice." If you can't hit your target, you have no business pulling the trigger. That is just as true on the street as it is at 30,000 feet. It is also true for LE as well as anyone else. At least in LE, the deep pockets of liability will probably be the taxpayers. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would suffer significant financial setbacks for that type of liability. I'm pretty sure that anyone on this board would be financially ruined if they missed in that situation. Not to mention the other legal and psychological difficulties.

Here is a domestic airliner question for those in the profession. If a significant event happens while over the continental United States, what is the longest time likely between advising ATC of the emergency and wheels down? I ask this question in anticipation of the consideration of "backup assistance" not being available at cruise altitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Your proving my point every time you type.

---

ANd your proving mine. There is zero reason why a citizen should not have the right to carry a firearm on board an airplane. The exact same logic could be applied to any public transportation or venue. In fact that is the exact same logic being applied to magazine limits, UBC's, and the CCW on college campuses. I mean, the guy next to you with a firearm might have just broken up with his gf and be unstable and lose it.

Get over yourself. Your not better than me or any other citizen. That you choose to hold the public in such disdain is somewhat interesting. Perhaps you should seek employment with the Democrat Party Comrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Alot.

The reasoning for weapons retention for uniformed police officers is based on the regular carry of an exposed weapon, which is visible and accessible to anyone behind, to the side, or otherwise in close proximity. When your job has you rolling around on the ground while trying to subdue a subject, or working crowd control at an Occupy style rally, knowing where your weapons are and keeping them away from others is pretty important.

While, in training, we work on regaining weapons if you happen to lose one, the emphasis is obviously on not losing them in the first place.

Ground fighting is also an important part of training in LE. Would anyone like to consider the difficulties of ground fighting in the aisle or between seats on a full airplane? Again, the emphasis is on not going to the deck, and if you go, make sure you are on top. There are a lot of hard, sharp items down there. You can use them if you are in a position of dominance. They can be used against you if you are not.

There are many difficult environments to work in, and anyone who thinks that a gun will get you out of more trouble than it can get you into is just fooling themselves. For a citizen who carries concealed, use of a firearm should really be considered a weapon of last resort. Something along the lines of "If I don't pull this trigger, someone will die or be seriously injured. I have no other choice." If you can't hit your target, you have no business pulling the trigger. That is just as true on the street as it is at 30,000 feet. It is also true for LE as well as anyone else. At least in LE, the deep pockets of liability will probably be the taxpayers. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would suffer significant financial setbacks for that type of liability. I'm pretty sure that anyone on this board would be financially ruined if they missed in that situation. Not to mention the other legal and psychological difficulties.

Here is a domestic airliner question for those in the profession. If a significant event happens while over the continental United States, what is the longest time likely between advising ATC of the emergency and wheels down? I ask this question in anticipation of the consideration of "backup assistance" not being available at cruise altitude.

---

Roughly... (very roughly) considering all of the factors that may be involved 15 minutes. Colowyo is stud and could do it in 10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers.

---

TSA is not the only line of defense.

Passengers, post 9/11 are anything but defenseless. I think many people would be shocked just what passengers have done to their fellow passengers when they have done stupid things on airplanes after 9/11. It would take a mighty foolish individual to jump up and take a screaming run at a flight deck door today. God help the fool if the plane is on it's way to an airport near a large military base and the plane is full of young and vigorous members of our military. There would be a world of hurt delivered unto the wicked on that flight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

TSA is not the only line of defense.

Passengers, post 9/11 are anything but defenseless. I think many people would be shocked just what passengers have done to their fellow passengers when they have done stupid things on airplanes after 9/11. It would take a mighty foolish individual to jump up and take a screaming run at a flight deck door today. God help the fool if the plane is on it's way to an airport near a large military base and the plane is full of young and vigorous members of our military. There would be a world of hurt delivered unto the wicked on that flight.

---

Point ceded, and your right I have seen a greater awareness among many passengers on my flights.
I was stuck in an airport on 9/11. I had a bag full of specialty tools with me that I had carried from TN to CA for a contract working with a race team there. On the way out I just popped them into the underseat, on the way back the police officer inspecting the bag nearly crapped himself when he saw the saws and other tools in the bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

ANd your proving mine. There is zero reason why a citizen should not have the right to carry a firearm on board an airplane. The exact same logic could be applied to any public transportation or venue. In fact that is the exact same logic being applied to magazine limits, UBC's, and the CCW on college campuses. I mean, the guy next to you with a firearm might have just broken up with his gf and be unstable and lose it.

Get over yourself. Your not better than me or any other citizen. That you choose to hold the public in such disdain is somewhat interesting. Perhaps you should seek employment with the Democrat Party Comrade.

---

[ontopic]

No I am not better....nor did I say I was better. What I did explain to you while using small words is that I work in this environment and the odds are I know a lot more than you do about it. Hold the public in disdain? Dude, the flying public pays my salary and I'm thankful as hell for that. Now I'm a Democrat because you disagree with me? I tell you what find 5 Airline pilots that agree with you and I'll issue you a public apology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Roughly... (very roughly) considering all of the factors that may be involved 15 minutes. Colowyo is stud and could do it in 10

---

I thought if you sent 7500 you didn't get to land right away.

Does CStone remind anyone else of Sheriff Bill Masters? Not that I know either one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Does CStone remind anyone else of Sheriff Bill Masters? Not that I know either one of them.

---

I've been to Telluride. I've never met Sheriff Masters. I don't know whether reminding anyone of him would be a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm willing to buy you a cup of coffee Irving. Then you could say you've met one of us [Beer]

I read his book and I'll bet you that cup of coffee that you'd agree with it. Your posts remind me of his sound logic. Carry on (just not while you're sitting between a judge and the Post Master general on a commercial airliner about to take off from a treadmill).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I read his book and I'll bet you that cup of coffee that you'd agree with it. Your posts remind me of his sound logic. Carry on (just not while you're sitting between a judge and the Post Master general on a commercial airliner about to take off from a treadmill).

---

Thanks for the book recommendation. I need to finish the Cormac McCarthy book I've been trying to finish, but I will definitely put Masters' book on my list.

Someone on the site mailed me one out of the blue last year. I can't remember who it was, but he sent it free of charge and I made sure to read it. If that guy is reading this now, I forgot to thank you for the kind gesture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Thanks for the book recommendation. I need to finish the Cormac McCarthy book I've been trying to finish, but I will definitely put Masters' book on my list.

---

Which one CSTONE? Blood Merdian is one of my favorite novels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Really....one of the dumbest arguments you've seen on this? Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention. All it would take is one careless person carrying and one motivated terrorist, psyco, whatever to seize the moment. Most passengers aren't quite as ninja as yourself. May I ask.....what do you do for a living?

---

Yes, one of the dumbest arguments. Your argument about accidental hits to hydraulic lines was much better. LEOs typically carry openly so need to worry about retention more than someone who is carrying concealed. You may certainly ask -- I'm a consulting engineer. Specifically, a systems engineer so I look at processes and data flow as well as specific system designs. Prior to that, I was USAF so the rare times I was issued a weapon, we carried openly and DID worry about retention (especially when supporting the SPs on patrol after 9/11).

Just what motivated terrorist or psycho can you think of who is going to go reaching into random armpits or down pants in search of a weapon? THAT's the stupidity I'm talking about when you focus your argument on retention as it applies to concealed carry. I'll grant you retention as a factor in arguing against open carry but it's a ridiculous point when you're talking about concealed carry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMAC757

Which one CSTONE? Blood Merdian is one of my favorite novels.

---

​The Orchard Keeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who are legal to own and possess firearms, should not be allowed to have access to a firearm.

I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.

What say you.

---

First, I agree.
I see the question of firearms access by law-abiding citizens as one of simple self defense.
If you change the discussion/question to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who have a God given right to self defense, should not be allowed to defend themselves.

I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.

What say you.

---

I think the answer is clear - No Where!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

I think the answer is clear - No Where!

---

Since I wrote the original question, I have been reminded of the issues about having weapons in a detention facility (criminal or mental). As I stated above, I consent to be disarmed in a place where the inmates are stripped searched. Taking a weapon into one of these places is truly counter productive and dangerous.

Second, while I still do not feel safer in a "gun free" airport or on a "gun free" commercial airliner, I will publicly acknowledge that there is virtually no possibility that this restriction will go away during my life time. I lament the amount of taxpayer and consumer money that has been spent and will continue to be spent on a false sense of security.

I did add the private property and private property owner rights caveat after the original question, and I fully recognize, and support the rights of private property owners to consent or deny access to anyone or anything on their property.

Last, let me add this point. IMO, there is no such thing in this country as a true "gun free" zone. It is a legal construct of government that is either obeyed by law abiding citizens, ignored by criminals, or superseded by agents of the government, who are authorized to carry guns into these so called "gun free" zones. I personally resent the assumption by government at all levels that agents of the government are inherently more trustworthy and proficient than law abiding citizens. IMO, this assumption by government is based on arbitrary and often untested and unsupported implied competence.

I will expand on a tenet of our judicial system, Innocent until proven Guilty. I believe that a citizen is competent and trustworthy until proven otherwise. I support due process of an objective magistrate in examining evidence prior to removing the rights of citizens. This is where I stand.

Be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Since I wrote the original question, I have been reminded of the issues about having weapons in a detention facility (criminal or mental). As I stated above, I consent to be disarmed in a place where the inmates are stripped searched. Taking a weapon into one of these places is truly counter productive and dangerous.

Second, while I still do not feel safer in a "gun free" airport or on a "gun free" commercial airliner, I will publicly acknowledge that there is virtually no possibility that this restriction will go away during my life time. I lament the amount of taxpayer and consumer money that has been spent and will continue to be spent on a false sense of security.

I did add the private property and private property owner rights caveat after the original question, and I fully recognize, and support the rights of private property owners to consent or deny access to anyone or anything on their property.

Last, let me add this point. IMO, there is no such thing in this country as a true "gun free" zone. It is a legal construct of government that is either obeyed by law abiding citizens, ignored by criminals, or superseded by agents of the government, who are authorized to carry guns into these so called "gun free" zones. I personally resent the assumption by government at all levels that agents of the government are inherently more trustworthy and proficient than law abiding citizens. IMO, this assumption by government is based on arbitrary and often untested and unsupported implied competence.

I will expand on a tenet of our judicial system, Innocent until proven Guilty. I believe that a citizen is competent and trustworthy until proven otherwise. I support due process of an objective magistrate in examining evidence prior to removing the rights of citizens. This is where I stand.

Be safe.

---

Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.

i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.

i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.

---

A-Freaking-men!
In terms of the airline problem- as I've stated before, my concern is not a stray round bringing the plane down, or even inhibiting someones rights (much less the asinine- not picking a fight with you RMAC- retention fear), my concern is that anyone lacking the skills equal to that of some kind of special ops/SWAT/IDF/etc in terms of CQB, in a tight airline fuselage, is a huge liability. It's one thing to engage a hostile in your home or on the street, but inside the extremely confined quarters of an airliner stress and margin of error increase exponentially, and even the most prepared and fast-reactive person would have difficulty in that situation. I am very confident in my training and skills, but I'm no expert, and I don't think I'd be comfortable engaging a hostile on an airliner. YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

Yes, one of the dumbest arguments. Your argument about accidental hits to hydraulic lines was much better. LEOs typically carry openly so need to worry about retention more than someone who is carrying concealed. You may certainly ask -- I'm a consulting engineer. Specifically, a systems engineer so I look at processes and data flow as well as specific system designs. Prior to that, I was USAF so the rare times I was issued a weapon, we carried openly and DID worry about retention (especially when supporting the SPs on patrol after 9/11).

Just what motivated terrorist or psycho can you think of who is going to go reaching into random armpits or down pants in search of a weapon? THAT's the stupidity I'm talking about when you focus your argument on retention as it applies to concealed carry. I'll grant you retention as a factor in arguing against open carry but it's a ridiculous point when you're talking about concealed carry.

---

I concede...Your obviously the expert [not-worthy] Hydraulic lines...WTF are you talking about? Maybe the airline industry can hire you as a sort of security consultant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.

i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.

---

Unless you board an aircraft...then we are all not the same and there is a different set of rules. It's no different than being aboard a ship.

As to planes, should be up to airline, not govt.

cstone, thank you, your statement is dead on.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

Ran across this while searching for something else, let's bump it up for old time sake (and the newbs). Wow there are a lot of old members no longer with us (or don't participate).

People should only be allowed to carry inside their own homes, inside a room with bullet-proof walls, that's locked from the outside. No magazines over 15 rounds at all. Then the rest of us will be safe.

I always thought that carrying in certain places like airplanes and sporting events don't really need to be scrutanitized or disected nearly as much, as one carries there as they are between places where they are more likely to need a firearm. Same with carrying while driving. The chances that drawing/firing while driving would ever be the best thing to do are insignificantly small, but transitioning when you are stopped each time is not reasonable.

Yes, I know that there are chumps out there who fantasize about brandashing in such places to look tough, but I think that is likely a pretty small minority.

People used to carry on aircraft prior to it being banned. We could and did carry weapons if we felt like it. It was a free country without issues.

Environments with explosive vapors, visiting rooms at prisons where visitors and convicts have direct contact, some courtrooms (divorce court comes to mind)... that's about all I can think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I always thought that carrying in certain places like airplanes and sporting events don't really need to be scrutanitized or disected nearly as much, as one carries there as they are between places where they are more likely to need a firearm. Same with carrying while driving. The chances that drawing/firing while driving would ever be the best thing to do are insignificantly small, but transitioning when you are stopped each time is not reasonable.

Yes, I know that there are chumps out there who fantasize about brandashing in such places to look tough, but I think that is likely a pretty small minority.

---

I can agree with this. When I used to go to sporting events, I can think of very few opportunities that I would have had a good safe shot if needed, but it doesn't mean I don't want to be armed from the stadium to my vehicle. Doesn't really matter now, as I don't attend sporting events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurley842002

I can agree with this. When I used to go to sporting events, I can think of very few opportunities that I would have had a good safe shot if needed, but it doesn't mean I don't want to be armed from the stadium to my vehicle. Doesn't really matter now, as I don't attend sporting events.

---

While the chances of hitting unintended targets is great at sporting events...they are one of the places I most would desire my firearm. Incidents of people attacked (and sometimes killed) at sporting events has grown with the expansion of alcohol at said events. Attacks, robberies, murders have all gone up at professional sports arenas in the last number of years...and I suspect we are not being told the true numbers as the sports leagues are probably squashing a number of stories as it would dampen their ticket sales.

Guns are dangerous. No one should have them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

I dont think ANYONE should be able to carry a gun in DC. No cops, no security guards, no politicians, nobody.

Then we can see how these piece of shit politicians like it when they are unprotected and at the mercy of criminals. I would love to see that.

---

The capital would be invaded by angry North Koreans who would then blow up all of our nukes in the silos. Wait, wasn't there a crappy movie about that?