Scalise was bulletproof

Why dies that make it moot? If someone were armed on the plane, presumably, there wouldn't have been an incident.
Why was the reaction, the popular reaction, the reaction supported by all the law enforcement agencies, to the largest terror attack on US soil, to be even tighter on gun control rather than more permissive?

No, that means nothing.
The question is, how would having more guns in the hands of terrorists HELP?

 

They weren't armed

You might have trainedofficer with guns, but they are being more strict than ever about normal passengers carrying guns on board.

“The transport of firearms in carry-on bags represents a threat to the safety and security of air travelers,” said TSA’s New Jersey Federal Security Director Tom Carter. https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2...rearms-planes-if-properly-packed-and-declared​

Really? Isn't it SAFER?
Who is the Federal Security liberal wingnut?

 

Perhaps that is why airline pilots are allowed to carry firearms now?

Panic. Nothing but plain, simple, animalistic panic. That is why airlines and airport security takes such matters to the absolute extreme, and will not allow passengers to bring items on that cannot possibly be mistaken for a weapon. That is the reason stories such as the following are seen in the news.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/tsa-confiscates-sock-monkeys-toy-gun-f2D11722377

Like countless others, you mistakenly assume that the terrorists do not already have access to any and every weapon they either want or need for carrying out a specific attack. The Charlie Hebdo attack demonstrated that even with all of the firearm-related restrictions in the united kingdom, they are still able to procure machine guns when they wish. They have simply changed their tactics to reflect the fact that they are not utilizing far more devastating, and far more inconspicuous weapons for the purpose of carrying out their attacks. That is why the number of motor-vehicle related attacks are increasing.

 

Bear in mind the TSA has also ruled that cupcakes cannot be brought onto airlines, because they also pose a threat to the safety and security of air travelers.

 

Guns on airplanes have been a common item all through history on airplanes.

They only became a problem when liberals started allowing idiots from 3rd world crapholes into our country.

 

Well, not quite, but armed undercover agents were put on many flights.

 

According to the FBI, all of the firearms used in the incident were purchased in the state of Illinois, subject to not only federal regulations, but also the regulations of the state of Illinois, which included the suspect being licensed by the state to own a firearm. The rifle itself was purchased fourteen years ago, during the time when the so-called "assault weapons ban" was in force.

If even the firearm-related restrictions of the state of Illinois could do nothing to prevent this incident from occurring, there is no point in discussing further restrictions.

 

Limitless level of leftie loathsomeness:

 

You still have not answered why they don't let armed civvies onto planes.

 

Airlines, and by extension the airplanes themselves, are private entities and thus property property.

 

Its not a choice
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition

 

Why, when traveling through the united states, one cannot legally transport a firearm, even in their own motor vehicle, unless the firearm is stored in a locked case, unloaded, and separated from ammunition stored in another case?

 

Poorly-worded website but obviously they're referring to air travel, with references to checked baggage etc...

 

Incorrect. Legally a person cannot travel from one state to another when transporting a firearm in their motor vehicle, unless the firearm is stored in a locked case, unloaded, and separated from ammunition stored in another case. This applies to privately owned motor vehicles operating on the roads and freeways of the united states. Pray tell why is this legally the case?

 

I don't know. I didn't know that was the case.

 

The guy appears to be a normal democrat who was no more wacko than other average democrats

Or at least on the surface.

What criteria would the gun grabbers have used to prevent him from owning a gun?