July 2002 Newsletter Page 1 |
|
"The Internet Site For Legally Armed Citizens" |
| To Read The Articles Click On The Article Heading LAX Shooting Will Bring On More Gun Restrictions L.E.O.'s Who Believe In Legally Armed Citizens Why Practice Should Be Important To Every Legally Armed Citizen The Cost For A Alabama Pistol Permit
Varies By County Toby Keith And Peter Jennings Incident Indoor Gun Ranges Getting Ready To Open In The South If you would like to receive this newsletter subscribe here Enter Your E-Mail Address For Our E-Updates And Your Chance To Win Our Monthly Drawing Your Privacy Respected. We do not buy or sale E-Mail Address's |
|
 He walked into the airport and
went to the El Al ticket counter. An argument started and then the shooting.
He was soon neutralized by the El Al security personnel, with the assistance of a
passenger standing in the ticket line. Soon the shooter and a few others were
dead. Did he complete his mission? Not according to the extra ammunition and
magazines on his person. He was neutralized before he was able to fully
complete his deeds.As the media scurried from official to official asking if this was an act of terrorism, Israel had already issued their statement "this was an act of terrorism". Terror was still in the eyes of the people who were standing in the El Al ticket line. Terror was still in the eyes of people walking by the El Al ticket counter. Terror is terror whether the incident was motivated by religion, hatred of a race, or committed by a nut job with no brain function! Because of this shooting, expect to see more restrictions on weapons around and in airports. Until this shooting, a person could carry a gun in the airport parking lot, and in the un-secure area where the ticket counters are located. Expect this to all change quickly. What will not be discussed except in writings like this article, is what could have happened if the El Al security personnel were not in the area. More dead un-armed people who did not have a chance to defend themselves. If there were no restrictions, there probably would have been some armed citizens to respond to this incident. Because of "restrictions" placed on law abiding citizens, another person intent on crime, violence, and terror, has been able to kill. No matter what type of restrictions are placed, the only people who will obey the "restrictions" will be the law abiding, sane, citizens. Those who are intent on committing acts of terror, will continue to plan on how to carry out their acts of violence. They will now look for areas and locations that have the least amount of resistance. "No weapons" will continue to be key attack locations. Was this an act of terror? Was the shooting incident in New York in 1994, where a person shot Jewish school children on a bridge in New York and act of terror? Was the 1997 shooting on top of the Empire State Building in New York, an act of terror? Why are these questions asked. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet a Egyptian National who has been living in America since 1992, attacked the El Al airline location. Was this an act of terror? What else could it be? Now, instead of removing "restrictions" on law abiding legally armed citizens [including Israeli citizens who should be allowed to carry weapons wherever they go], expect to see more "restrictions" placed on law abiding innocent people. What will happen is the complete opposite of what could happen if all the "restrictions" were removed from these people. If all the restrictions were removed from law abiding legally armed citizens, it would be harder for acts of terror to be planned and carried out. It would also allow people to be able to defend themselves from acts of terror, including death. If more restrictions are imposed, you can expect only one thing to happen, more deaths from acts of terror. Asst. Chief David Gascon of the L.A.P.D. said "it bothers us that a person would walk into an airport with a weapon and start shooting". If it weren't for people doing these acts at an airport, in a bank, on the streets, or anywhere, his job would not be necessary. Would it also bother him or other officials, if more law abiding legally armed people were to walk into an airport or any other location with weapons that they would only be used if they were attacked or trying to defend someone else under attack? If his thinking is like a lot of senior law enforcement officials and political officials, I can carry a gun but, I am different than the average citizen. Yes, you will have a chance to defend yourself or your family on and off duty. That is the only difference. END
|
|
|
|