Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AN ANTI-BILL OF RIGHTS EXTREMIST RADICALS ARE PUTTING AMERICANS AT RISK
EtherZone ^ | 5-25-02 | John Bender

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 don’t 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 bureau’s 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 ABC’s 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 Magaw’s 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 Bush’s other conservative supporters.

Mineta’s record in Congress was almost as radical as Chucky Schumer’s. Mineta never saw an infringement of the Second Amendment that he didn’t 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: armingpilots; banglist; civilrights; secondamendment; terror

1 posted on 05/26/2002 9:07:52 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
We don’t want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane.

Three words: Glaser Safety Slugs.

2 posted on 05/26/2002 9:14:36 AM PDT by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list
Bang
3 posted on 05/26/2002 9:16:32 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"Magaw is either a liar or totally uninformed."

He's BOTH!

4 posted on 05/26/2002 9:18:03 AM PDT by Artie_Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gundog
Even without Glaser Safety Slugs there isn't a handgun made that will bring down a plane. But a heat-seeking missel will bring one down every time. Magaw is either unaware of this or putting his agenda ahead of the safety of the American people. Either way he should be sent packing.
5 posted on 05/26/2002 9:21:07 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Responsibility for the executive branch ultimately lies with the President. Apparently President Bush finds this policy decision by his subordinates at least acceptable.
6 posted on 05/26/2002 9:23:17 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artie_Kay
I agree!
7 posted on 05/26/2002 9:23:54 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Grut
I can't wait for Bush to take office an get rid of these Clinton appointees.
8 posted on 05/26/2002 9:25:16 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"I can't wait for Bush to take office an get rid of these Clinton appointees."

Ouch, that hurt ;')

9 posted on 05/26/2002 10:12:45 AM PDT by bloggerjohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sirgawain; SLB; GEC, gundog; harpseal; DWSUWF; Wild Game; Fiddlstix; Mercuria; basil; TexanaRED...
fyi
10 posted on 05/26/2002 10:21:02 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grut
This is a Bush appointment, plain and simple. Bush's position on the 2nd Amendment is that, since he was better than Gore, it got him elected. If he decides the wind's shifted and he'll somehow get more votes by instituting something the gun control crowd supports even though it violates the 2nd Amendment he'll go for it the same as his father did.

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.

11 posted on 05/26/2002 10:24:19 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
I blame Bush for this. In the exec branch, the buck stops with the president. Period.
12 posted on 05/26/2002 10:26:46 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
I personally don't see the need of the pilots to carry firearms. The SOP procedure should be that they stay in the cockpit and the cockpit is completely sealed during the flight. 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 and in the long run we need a system in which barring the use of explosives, you cannot get access to the pilots period. Keep the sky marshals, give them a few MP-5s and you're golden IMO.
13 posted on 05/26/2002 10:40:30 AM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
You are absolutely correct. Bush is as liberal as his father, and has already made more blunders than his father did in 4 years. Bush will not step up to the plate, but will allow the Republicans in Congress to carry his water, and take the heat. Afterall, Bush is too busy courting the hispanic vote to worry about the conservative vote. He figures that we are in the bag regardless of what he does. I'm finished with him, and will not vote for him in '04.
14 posted on 05/26/2002 10:44:42 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
It will require more than 65,000 sky marshals to put a marshal on every domestic flight. That will be a long time in coming and very expensive. Every flight has a pilot. To seal the pilots in the cockpit will require refitting every plane with a bathroom in the cockpit. That will take years and be real expensive.

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.

15 posted on 05/26/2002 10:55:12 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
The SOP procedure should be that they stay in the cockpit and the cockpit is completely sealed during the flight.

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.

16 posted on 05/26/2002 11:59:52 AM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"..Norman Mineta is Magaw’s boss and the man who recommended him for the job as head of the TSA. Mineta is another Clintonista. Bush reappointed him..."

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.

17 posted on 05/26/2002 12:03:46 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: serinde

18 posted on 05/26/2002 12:04:59 PM PDT by HowardC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: serinde
"Any argument against weapons in planes can be used against sky marshals just as easily."

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.

19 posted on 05/26/2002 12:13:31 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gundog
"Three words: Glaser Safety Slugs"

BANG

20 posted on 05/26/2002 12:23:23 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
Scotsman will be Free said: "I'm finished with him [BUSH], and will not vote for him in '04."

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.

21 posted on 05/26/2002 12:54:58 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gundog
We don’t want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane. Three words: Glaser Safety Slugs.

-------------------------

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.

22 posted on 05/26/2002 12:58:50 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
It comes down to this:

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.

23 posted on 05/26/2002 1:26:40 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: serinde
Personally I would prefer to let the corporations decide whether they feel that it would enhance security to allow those with CHL to carry guns onboard with them. It is one thing to leave it in the baggage, it is another to have it ready for use. I am not in favor of gun regulation, but I can see how terrorists could forge a CHL and get easy weapons onboard. That would renew assaults on CHLs. The gun control nazis would say look, "CHLs let terrorists carry weapons on planes!!!!!" It would be a disaster for private gun owner rights. Let the corporations decide whether non-government personnel can carry weapons onboard. That puts the onus of security squarely in the hands of the corporation and government and any failure cannot be shifted to CHL because the corporation allowed CHL owners to carry weapons onboard. A blanket law requiring CHL owners to be allowed to carry guns onboard would make it too easy to put the blame on CHLs.

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.

24 posted on 05/26/2002 1:40:24 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

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 !!


25 posted on 05/26/2002 1:43:16 PM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
My understanding is that Bush, not Mineta, chose Magaw. This view is, it seems to me, supported by Magaw's previous appointments in George H.W. Bush's administration.
26 posted on 05/26/2002 2:15:19 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grut
This is one of the hard truths conservatives are going to have to admit.
27 posted on 05/26/2002 2:47:19 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
The 'Bush knows what he is doing and we will all realize it in time' is wearing a little thin.

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??

28 posted on 05/26/2002 2:51:51 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
In the exec branch, the buck stops with the president.

Unfortunately, the schmucks don't.

As most Presidents learn, the hard way.
29 posted on 05/26/2002 7:34:32 PM PDT by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nanny
The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.
30 posted on 05/26/2002 7:41:45 PM PDT by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
As most Presidents learn, the hard way.

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.

31 posted on 05/26/2002 8:01:07 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
I think it will depend on a number of things including whether he signs the gun ban. (Things like the farm welfare bill, like the campaign finance reform bill, like the education bill, like the steel and soft lumber tariffs, among others.) They can fall under a general heading of government continuing to bother itself about nearly every last thing on earth, above and beyond its competence or its Constitutional mandate, except the one legitimate function it does have and the Constitution consecrates, namely: protecting American citizens, their rights and liberties, from assault from abroad and predators at home (real predators, including political predators, please, and not mere vicemongers). That (and not this "what did Bush know and when did he know it" nonsense re the atrocities of 9/11) will likely be the deciding factor in whether or not Mr. Bush proves a one-term wonder.

The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.
32 posted on 05/26/2002 8:19:30 PM PDT by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
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.

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.

33 posted on 05/26/2002 9:59:13 PM PDT by dbwz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Err... why do we still have a Transportation Security Administration anyway?
34 posted on 05/26/2002 10:02:49 PM PDT by arimus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"We don’t want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane."

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?

35 posted on 05/27/2002 12:07:47 AM PDT by Washington_minuteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washington_minuteman
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.

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.

36 posted on 05/27/2002 12:44:14 AM PDT by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
but I can see how terrorists could forge a CHL and get easy weapons onboard. That would renew assaults on CHLs. The gun control nazis would say look, "CHLs let terrorists carry weapons on planes!!!!!"

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!

37 posted on 05/27/2002 6:55:40 AM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gundog
"Three words: Glazer Safety Slugs."

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.

38 posted on 05/27/2002 7:19:58 AM PDT by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
I do know better...but it's an answer for those that worry about explosive decompression, or trigger-happy pilots that shoot with the same precision as NYC cops.
39 posted on 05/27/2002 9:18:25 AM PDT by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: SUSSA
Even without Glaser Safety Slugs there isn't a handgun made that will bring down a plane.

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.

41 posted on 05/28/2002 4:11:05 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson