Posted on 07/21/2002 9:57:15 AM PDT by Drew68
Sunday, July 21, 2002 - If the American anti-Second Amendment movement has achieved anything at all, it has been the ability to malign entire groups of people by painting them as unworthy to have access to legal firearms.
Decades of bombastic dialog with members of fanatic gun-control organizations have impressed a basic truth on me.
That is that members of the all-knowing anti-firearms coalition don't believe any individual or group of Americans, from sports hunters to police officers, are to be trusted with guns.
Over the years, Americans have looked on in amazement while anti-firearms campaigners like the Million Moms marchers have coagulated in cities across our nation for what they believe to be a good cause.
No one can convince me their cause is anything but a complete ban on every American's constitutional birthright to own firearms.
The newest group of people to fall under the propaganda of fear and loathing so masterfully used by the anti-Second Amendment clique are American commercial airline pilots.
Desperate to keep legislation from becoming law that would authorize airline pilots to arm themselves as the last line of defense in the event of another Sept. 11-type attack, the anti-firearms contingent has sought and gotten help from a powerful benefactor: The New York Times.
Carl Limbacher, writing for NewsMax.com, recently reported a story under the tag "The story behind the story." It was headlined, "Times Continues Spin Against Arming Pilots."
"The New York Times has found a reason to oppose the bill arming airline pilots," Limbacher wrote. "It would (gasp) upset trial lawyers.
"Not satisfied with its attempt to manipulate public opinion against arming pilots
... the fanatically anti-gun New York Times went back to the well again
... with a so-called news analysis aimed at the bill calling for arming airline pilots in cockpits, citing concerns by trial lawyers, of all people, that the legislation might limit their ability to sue both airlines and pilots.
" "The House-passed bill,' the Times whines, "would drastically limit the legal liability of airlines, for example, shielding them even from negligence not involving guns or terrorism, said some critics of the bill.' "
The Times noted the bill would deputize pilots who volunteered to be federal law enforcement officers.
Times reporter Adam Liptak drummed home the point that pilots who volunteered themselves as the final line of defense between the flight deck and the next crazy man seeking to commandeer it would receive free training and firearms from the government.
Imagine that.
Obviously the intention of people like Kristin Rand of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center is to try to discredit commercial airline pilots by using every means of disinformation possible.
Rand was quoted by The Times: "The airlines' liability waiver is incredibly broad and could be read to relate to circumstances not related to guns, even if it's forgetting to set the flaps at takeoff."
While it is easy for me to attribute Rand's remarks to her ignorance about the automated systems and human skills involved in getting an airplane into the sky, it is impossible for me to forgive The Times, with its pool of aviation experts a telephone call away, to allow such a nonsensical statement.
A hard truth for Rand, and the opinion makers at the venerable New York Times as well, to face is that the legacy from Osama bin Laden is either salvation or death in the sky.
For if the best-laid plans of our government fail to rise to the occasion, and control of the passenger cabin falls into the hands of another gang of terrorists, the conclusion would most certainly again be death for all souls on board - either death by the actions of the terrorists, should they achieve their goal, or perhaps worse yet, death at the remorseful hand of an American military pilot following the president's order to bring down the commandeered aircraft.
Either way you cut it, it could be another grim scenario.
However, instead of praising those pilots willing to step up to the plate to offer themselves as a last desperate line of defense, The Times has given credibility to alarmists like Rand who seem to believe the passengers in the above situation will be able to appeal to the milk of human kindness in the terrorists, or better yet, the president would somehow be dissuaded from giving the order to shoot down an American aircraft.
For what it's worth, I think it's a liberal scenario up there with "Goldilocks and the Three Bears."
Ken Hamblin bac@compuserve.com ; www.hamblin.com writes Sundays in The Post and hosts a syndicated radio talk show.
I wish he would replace Clark Howard for a couple of his afternoon hours here in Atlanta. I like Clark, but it's really the same stuff again and again.
It really has nothing to do with the NWO, although the NWO benefits.
I remember immediately after 9-11, there was talk that things were now so clear that there would be NO toleration of Political Correctness, and things like concealed carry would finally be admitted as correct, and the only proper course of action. Liberals thought long and hard (as far as their limited intelligence takes them) about it, and came to the conclusion that common sense, reality, and even a war, must not be allowed to derail their statist dreams. So we have them blasting Bush, and digging for enough dirt to start impeachment talk, while stating that they support him on the war 100%.
When faced with the imminent death of their most cherished wet dreams after 9-11, they decided that more WTC disasters, and even an islamic victory over America, would be "a small price to pay" (a favorite expression of theirs, as long as somebody else is doing the paying) to keep their dreams alive. Arming pilots, and general civilian carry, only makes sense in a terrorist war with the bad guys already among us.
More and more honest research shows that CCW works, and gun control "studies" by "respected historians" are just shoddy lies. Armed pilots would be another nail in the coffin of gun control, and they can't "allow" that.
What they're saying is more death and destruction is "a small price to pay" to keep their gun control myths alive.
Yes, he is. I think he used to refer to himself as "Just an unassuming colored guy" which drove the left absolutely nuts. He was run off the air in Kalamazoo, Michigan near my hometown 8 or 9 yrs ago because of this and his conservative stances.
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.