Last Monday, we looked at a sampling of the hysteria triggered by a Senate vote to cut off federal funding for Amtrak, unless passengers are once again permitted to travel with locked, unloaded firearms in their checked baggage. In that column, I focused mostly on how silly the citizen disarmament advocates' claimed fears were (and pointed out that even the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke seems not to have fallen victim to that silliness). Now, though, it occurs to me that this is no laughing matter--that Mayor Bloomberg, Representative McCarthy, and company, are actually resisting a change that could do much to combat the very real dangers of terrorism.
I am not referring to a scenario in which armed passengers would dispatch the terrorists before they could accomplish their evil mission--that, sadly, would be impossible, since the guns would be, by mandate, kept locked up and useless. The fact is, the scenario of armed terrorists storming a train and committing carnage seems a rather remote possibility. I cannot, in fact, think of such an attack ever having occurred, anywhere in the world.
Much more likely, and more terrifying, is the possibility of explosives being smuggled onto the train, to be remotely detonated, as happened in Madrid, Spain in 2004; or simply triggered by suicidal fanatics eager for martyrdom and the 72 Virgins Dating Service. Recent events--in Denver/New York, Springfield (IL), and Dallas--would seem to indicate that explosives are still the preferred weapon of choice for terrorists. As I mentioned last week, Mayor Bloomberg himself has noted that security on Amtrak is not exactly air-tight:
Bloomberg said that the Amtrak security was already pretty lax, and if the new bill passes, there wouldn’t be anything keeping someone from carrying multiple assault weapons in their baggage.
"Pretty lax" security, it seems to me, is pretty unlikely to prevent explosives from being smuggled on-board. Therefore, it would seem to me that improving the screening of luggage would be a very prudent measure.
Inexplicably, one of the main objections to the Amtrak bill is, supposedly, the cost of improving luggage screening:
“Creating a huge financial burden on Amtrak to install a system [for luggage screening] that even transit officials say can’t be effectively implemented and then threatening to cut off Amtrak’s funding shows how irresponsible the Senate was in approving this measure. And that’s exactly why Sen. Wicker’s gun amendment needs to be stripped from the final version,” said Scott Vogel, Communications Director for FSA. “No mayor or governor, much less everyday Americans who rely on trains as an alternative transit option, think that allowing the gun lobby to single-handedly bankrupt Amtrak is a good idea just to make an ideological statement.”
Never mind the fact that if luggage is not being screened, there is little to stop anyone from bringing firearms aboard right now--the point is that improved luggage screening would significantly improve passenger safety--and the firearm bill's opponents are arguing against requiring a federally funded transportation service to conduct that improved screening.
And they claim to be on the side of safety.
Comments
There is no practical difference between being disarmed and having a useless gun inaccessibly stored, but there is a bit of a ..... no, I guess there isn't. Either way you are disarmed by "law".
It all depends on whose safety to which you are referring, Kurt.
Of course they want to be safe from citizens they have victimized and intend to victimize even more, if only they can disarm them. These people aren't stupid. They know they have pushed about as far as they dare until they can achieve universal helplessness among the populace.
But neither am I stupid, I will know when the time comes to call them to account. They seek to avert that time. They will lose if they don't desist before that time comes. I hope they do, but if not, oh well.
This is something I picked up on right away, they don't support security upgrades...
I live in SW Washington state, used Amtrak some years ago to travel from Olympia to Vancouver: There was NO SECURITY whatsoever. No restricted access to the platform, no checked baggage for local trains. NO PROBLEM.
That was just my experience. Perhaps it's different for express trains/sleepers, etc.
Any local runs are by their nature impossible to secure as you would commercial aircraft: Too many trains, too many stops, electronic ticketing, access not limited on platforms, etc.
I haven't traveled by rail on the east coast, but I can expect that someone who gets on a train in one state (legal carry there) might have a problem from train cops in New York, DC, New Jersey - Hell the cops may even go on the trains to frisk the passengers for "illegal guns" (illegal within their jurisdiction).
I know I'm going to catch heck for this, but...
Shouldn't we be moving toward the place where baggage screening is no longer necessary because no one is out to get us? If our foreign policy were to mind our own business and not to butt into every 3rd-world difference-of-opinion, there'd be little (possibly 'no') value in some cocoa puff from Wheresoever-stan even acknowledging our existence.
I think we're trying to solve the wrong problem.
FrankInFL:
Whatever you catch, it won't be because your observation is not relevant. History is pretty clear that governments have long turned to adventuring abroad as a means of drumming up new bogeymen with which to foist their protection racket against the peasantry. A continual supply of bad guys, out to get us, is paraded along with the "obvious answer" that we need protection from the state.
And isn't that ironic. We bloody well DO need protection from the state, which with every breath and act moves toward its own empowerment at the expense of the liberties of those it purports to rule.
But external bad guys have nothing to do with it. That problem is an invention of a garden-variety protection racket. As Robert LeFevre put it, "government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
Special alert
Hardin Montana has been taken over by the American Police Force which is a foreign owned Mercenary company.
The APF was meant to run the “two Rivers detention center” at Hardin, but assumed the roll of city police.
APF was never given the right to take over the town and become the police but they did it any way!
The prison however is not a jail but a massive interment facility with schools and other facilities for families
The APF has started going to local citizens and telling them that they have a list of ALL of the guns that they own and the citizens must bring their guns to the offices of APF to be tagged.
Continued…
Over the weekend a local radio station I believe the call letters are KGEZ that broadcast into Hardin area has been shut down.
The station was talking about the Mercenary force in Hardin, swine flu and other patriot issues
30 jack-boots forced the station to go off the air. The owner is now afraid he is going to loose his station since he can’t operate he can’t pay his bills.
Kurt, apologies if this Hardin/APF topic hijacks the point at hand here.
madashell: My understanding is that this facility was built on a promise from some time ago that never materialized, so the idea that the town may have accepted a less than savory tenant over no tenant is not terribly surprising. Where are you getting your information from on this? Are you local to the area?
"scenario of armed terrorists storming a train"
In the Netherlands in the 1970s South Moluccan terrorists took a train hostage. I don't think there was any "storming" involved -- just boarded at a station, and halted the train in a rural setting.
We (gun rights supporters) can't bankrupt Amtrak. The government got there first.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!