Skip to comments.AN ANTI-BILL OF RIGHTS EXTREMIST RADICALS ARE PUTTING AMERICANS AT RISK
Posted on 05/26/2002 9:07:52 AM PDT by SUSSA
John Magaw, director of the Transportation Security Administration, announced that he would not authorize commercial airline pilots to carry firearms to protect the plane and the public from another terrorist attack. The excuse he gave the Senate is " We dont want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane."Magaw is either a liar or totally uninformed.
The new standard operating procedure for handling a hijacking of a commercial airplane is for the Air Force to shoot the plane down if it leaves its flight plan. I would be willing to bet Magaw that the U.S. Air Force has much more "potential of bringing that plane down" than a stray bullet fired from a handgun does.
Now, the question is, does Magaw not know that this is now S.O.P.? Is he that unaware? Or, does he know and lied in his testimony to conceal his real reason for refusing to take this common sense safety measure?
The latter may be the disgusting truth. Magaw may be placing his personal, radical political agenda ahead of the safety and security of the American people.
Magaw is an anti-Second Amendment radical. Bill Clinton chose Magaw to head the BATF after the agency raided the church in Waco, killing Pastor Koresh and most of his congregation. Magaw saw to it that none of the thugs responsible for that massacre were ever brought to justice. He also protected the assassin, Lon Horiuchi, from prosecution for the murder of Vicky Weaver.
As head of the BATF Magaw made it the bureaus position that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act made it a crime to possess a gun within 1000 feet of a home school. He held the position that this included the parents of the home-schooled child. Magaw formally asserted this ridicules position in a letter to Rep. Dan Coats.
Magaw made no secret of his extremist views. Asked about handguns in an interview with ABCs Day One correspondent John McKenzie, Magaw said; "The truth is, they (handguns) are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket."
Magaw never mentioned the 2.5 million times a year guns are used to defend against crime or the fact that a woman is seven times more likely to escape a rape attempt unharmed if she defends herself with a gun. He simply pushed the anti-civil rights disinformation spread by radical anti-civil rights groups like Handgun Control Inc. (or what ever name they are hiding behind this week).
There is no question that Magaw is an anti-Bill of Rights extremist. It seems strange that the Bush Administration would put this Clintonista in charge of the Transportation Security Administration. But it is no surprise to anyone who knows who recommended him for the job and who is now his boss.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is Magaws boss and the man who recommended him for the job as head of the TSA. Mineta is another Clintonista. Bush reappointed him to the cabinet to the horror of civil rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, as well as to the dismay of Bushs other conservative supporters.
Minetas record in Congress was almost as radical as Chucky Schumers. Mineta never saw an infringement of the Second Amendment that he didnt support. No attack on the Second Amendment was radical enough to keep Mineta from wholeheartedly supporting it.
After his infamous stint in Congress, Clinton put Mineta in his cabinet. Bush inexplicably kept Mineta as a member of his cabinet. Now that bad decision is putting everyone who flies or works in a high-rise building at risk.
Thankfully, there are reasonable people in Congress who are ready to force these extremists to take the common sense safety precaution of arming pilots. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia introduced the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act (H.R. 435). This law will force these anti-Bill of Rights extremists to put the safety of the American people ahead of their personal agenda. It will keep Mineta and Magaw from blocking the will of Congress and the American people, and make airplanes safe again by arming the pilots.
Hopefully, before this bill becomes law, President Bush will step in and force Mineta and Magaw to do the sensible thing. One phone call from Bush could force these two Clintonistas to put our safety ahead of their own political agenda. He needs to make that call today.
But, even if Bush steps in to fix this mess, this law will still be needed. There will always be terrorists and we could someday have another anti-Bill of Rights president. In that case, the law would be harder to change than a presidential directive. The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act will be our insurance that air travel will be as safe as possible no matter who is in the White House.
Every American who flies, works in a tall building, or has a loved one who does either, needs to call and write President Bush and demand that he overrule Mineta and Magaw. They also need to call and write their Representative and Senators telling them to pass H.R.4635 immediately. We cannot afford to let two extremists put thousands of lives at risk.
Three words: Glaser Safety Slugs.
Ouch, that hurt ;')
It's up to the pro 2nd Amendment community to make sure Bush understands that little lapses like this one aren't going to be forgotten and will erode his already thin electoral base. Like his father, my guess is he'll allow the natural arrogance that runs in his family, combined with his high (and IMHO temporary) approval ratings and core beliefs (more Rockefeller than Reagan), to make the 2004 election night tally a lot more exciting than he'd like it to be.
Prior to the pathetic Carter Administration, on any plane carrying the U.S. Mail the pilot was required to be armed by federal regulation. Over 90% of commercial flights carry mail yet there was never a problem with a pilot being armed.
Over 70% of the professional pilots think they need to be armed as one last chance before the F- 16's put a heat seeking missel into a plane on its way to crash into a building. Personally, I'd rather take my chances that a pilot is a bad shot than hope I survive our Air Force shooting a missel into a plane I'm in.
There is no down-side to arming pilots and it could save thousands of people in planes and tall buildings. It is a common sense safety measure that needs to be implemented today.
Yes, piloting flights will be really fun with no restroom or food in the cockpit.
In the interim I can see a need for them to carry firearms, but they both need to be trained how to use them effectively...
From what I understand, about 75% of airline pilots are ex-military. Thus, they are already trained in how to use weapons effectively.
Keep the sky marshals, give them a few MP-5s and you're golden IMO.
Any argument against weapons in planes can be used against sky marshals just as easily. Any argument for sky marshals can be applied to anyone with a CHL carrying on a plane as well. There is no need to limit guns in planes to sky marshals except politics.
Bush-43 is the same empty shirt as his ol' man, Bush-41. They try too hard to be "bipartisan".
GW is to the Democrats, what Neville Chamberlain was to the Nazi's.
I agree, and more so. A hijacking occurs at the cockpit. Pilots defending the cockpit would be shooting back, away from the sensitive cockpit, but into the passenger compartment (sorry folks).
Conversely, air marshals would be firing forward at the cockpit and INTO the instruments and possibly the pilots.
I greatly prefer that pilots be armed as a matter of course.
Bush is a very successful politician. Some of his success comes from the way that he disarms his enemies with his lack of arrogance.
The way I see it, Bush felt that there would be considerable benefit to leaving Democrats in some high level positions. Mineta was given Transportation. Mineta chose Magaw.
Who would have dreamed in January 2001, that the Department of Transportation would be involved in anything more critical than whether truckers are testing their tire pressures frequently enough or airlines are maintaining their schedules adequately.
The most important posts were those involving Defense, National Security, and the Attorney General.
The best outcome from this point is for the pilots to stage a 100% effective strike making it plain that they expect to be allowed to carry firearms. Congress will hurry legislation which makes the airlines and pilots solely responsible for onboard security of their airplanes. Bush will sign such legislation.
It would then be perfectly reasonable for Bush to expect and ask for Mineta's resignation for failure to anticipate the nation's security needs. There would be little need for Bush to justify losing Democrats from his administration in such a case. Bush might even be able to find a pro-gun Democrat to appoint in Mineta's place.
A 44 special or a 45 ACP will stop a man as though he's been hit by a pick-up truck. They won't do much damage to a plane. I'd make them optional for pilots.
If the government "allows" pilots to be armed, then that would be telling the American sheeple that the government isn't the only one who can protect us from "terrorism". The government doesn't want that. We must believe that the federal government, and only the federal government, can protect us from all of life's ills.
Another thing. Put a friggin bathroom in the cockpit if there isn't one handy. That way the pilots can have their munchies in the cockpit with them and not have to leave during the flight. It's the perfect way to make the cockpit self-contained.
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
In the meantime, we are being sold out at every turn.
He is a politician and probably a likeable person, but does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart.
There is no other way to interpret his actions since taking office.
Yessir!! He is disarming the democrats and giving them everything they ask for and more. Just who is getting 'taken' here? Might it just be the (gulp) us??
I think as of now, the odds are even-up if Bush wins in 2004. (I know I know...aprroval ratings is at 1995%...)
It's all soft support. Soft support doesn't mean jack. John Engler in 1990 never had more than 38% in the polls...except election day..where he had 50.6% in the polls, the only one he won.
In my case his vote will depend on whether he signs or vetos the ugly gun ban. If he signs it....I don't even want to think about it.
I was against pilots being armed when this whole argument first came up, but it's this aspect that has caused me to change my mind.
Imagine, too, being the pilot of the F-16 that has to bring down a planeload of fellow Americans.
Oh yes. It's much better to have these aircraft shot down by NATO fighters. What else would one expect from the former Chief Butcher of the BATF?
No, it's not strange at all to those of us who have been paying attention, is it? The Bush Presidency merely bought us a little time - that's all.
Interesting point. But don't forget that people with real CHLs would also have guns available, not just the bad guys.
Also, the govt. is trying to allow LEOs to carry anywhere they want. Your argument could also be used in those cases, which I don't think they have thought about. Perhaps they should!
You should know better. This is just falling into the myth about "explosive decompression".
If you are going to shoot a terrorist on an airplane, you want to kill him, not just make him mad.
Thousands of planes made in home in the wars after being shot to pieces. A couple of little holes are nothing. Hollywood's special effects are propaganda for dims, and have brainwashed millions.