[quote]If someone there is to be armed (hopefully not the screeners - ever) then a rifle is surely the worst instrument for this job. Not only is it more bulky than a pistol, but it is harder to aim in that small enclosed environment, when any situation necessitating its need would be to take one person down and not a whole group of bystanders themselves clearing security. Are they expecting to spray bullets in the area? I surely hope not.
<hr></blockquote>
You are correct that any type of rifle projectile fired indoors (especially in a marble and tiled airport terminal) is one of the WORST choices from a tactical standpoint, but it is only a worry IF they have ammunition for said rifles! The Nat. Guard guys are nothing more than scarecrows to pacify the flying public, and as POSSIBLE deterrent. If they were actually there to be effective in countering a threat, they'd be more effective if they were NOT seen. Also, an MP-5 with frangible loads would be much more effective as well as reducing the chance of ricochet.
An M-16 is a baaaadddd LOOKING weapon! If you were trying to make security LOOK more effective, wouldn't you choose a few soldiers in camoflage and cool berets carrying M-16's where they are SEEN by the most people?
The entire issue is a farce.