I'm watching "The Ghost Writer" with Pierce Brosnan and Ewan McGregor. Pierce Brosnan, who's playing a former British Prime Minister, says (I'm not sure what led to this response...I suppose "watching" might be a strong word) that if he had it to do over again that they would have two airport queues, one for flights were they'd used no screening, no intelligence, not violated anyone's "bloody civil rights", etc, and one for where they used everything in use now...and then continues yelling about bleeding heart liberals complaining about civil rights violations. He said something about "then we'd see which flights they'd put their kids on". I think this is actually a good idea. If we had flights were "anything goes" and there was absolutely no screening of passengers, then we could all fly armed. Naturally, the cockpit of the planes would still be secure, so really there would be no risk, or very little risk, of hijacking. It would be another of those situations; if the bad guys don't know who's armed, will they be willing to take the risk? Considering that passengers already step up when someone on a flight gets unruly, wouldn't it be that much better? Go ahead underwear bomber, I dare you! I'll shoot you before you can blow up your C4 jockey shorts! If you could fly without having to go through any screening (leaving checked baggage screening in place, I think) would you? No full body x-rays, no metal detectors...I think I might want explosives sniffers, but that's it. You could fly armed, but then so could the bad guys who might want to try to hijack or blow up your plane. So, what do you think? I think I'd prefer it to the current system.