I don't necessarily agree with the columnists I post here. I do it to give all sides of a given item, in this case arming pilots. I do beleive in arming pilots, by the way, and in minimal government interference in business. I am TOTALLY against the airlines getting taxpayers' money as a result of 9/11. Why should they get money when other business who were affected by the events of that day are not getting taxpayers' money? -- David Ross http://home.attbi.com/~damiross > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <damiross@attbi.com> > To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:18 PM > > David > > She seems to suggest that because airlines are privately owned businesses, > that they have a right to protect their property in a way that they see fit. > > Obviously, you have made yourself clear that this is what your stance is > right? > > If this is the case, do you agree with her? > > And also, if you go agree with her, would you also agree that since airlines > are privately owned businesses, they are responsible for their own futures, > and hence, should not be they not be the recipients of billions of dollars > of taxpayers aid. The taxpayers aren't responsible for absolute pathetic > management at most of the American airlines, so why should they foot the > bill for incompetence by a PRIVATE business? > > You see, government does have a place in the business world, in every > country on this planet, because without some degree of authority, we would > all be living in a world which would resemble Taliban controlled > Afghanistan, and I can guarantee you that we wouldn't be hearing about > pilots pushing to have guns in the cockpit, because there would be no such > thing in America as a pilot or an airline. > > Think about it