Posted on 01/09/2004 5:03:28 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
Near the Canadian border in Boundary County, Idaho during August of 1992, the federal government went berserk. At Ruby Ridge Randy Weaver suffered the loss of his wife and son -- neither of whom had committed a crime -- to government agents.
The feds brought about an even worse debacle in Waco the next year, and other less breathtaking abuses of power have occurred with disturbing frequency.
Both tragedies stemmed from enforcement of unconstitutional laws for alleged crimes that had harmed no one.
Randy Weaver, in collaboration with Sheriff Richard Mack, has taken a look back at the ten years following the tragedy he suffered at the hands of renegade federal agents. They have produced a new book entitled Vicki, Sam, and America: How the Government Killed all Three.
From Weaver's vantage point, the problem has not been addressed, and America continues to suffer under the yoke of unaccountable power exercised beyond the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
Weaver looks at the federal criminal justice system and finds that it has too often done what it tried to do to him. Namely, the system often acts to cover up the misdeeds of agents who have broken the law. Lon Horiuchi was the FBI sharpshooter who killed Weaver's wife while she was holding a baby in her arms. The federal government attorneys argued that Horiuchi could not be tried in an Idaho court because he was a federal agent, and thus not subject to state laws. In other words, the feds view themselves as above the law.
Since Horiuchi's act was arguably murder, the Boundary County prosecutor had wanted to try Horiuchi for Vicki Weaver's death. The prosecutor finally got a federal court to OK the prosecution of Horiuchi -- but shortly thereafter he lost his reelection bid by eight votes! (Keep this one on file for those who say that their vote does not count.) The new prosecutor declined to continue the action against Horiuchi. The irony is that the new prosecutor was later forced out of office for perjury.
In any case, the federal government's argument that their employees are above the law gives a new meaning to the old TV show about federal agents, The Untouchables.
The government had targeted Weaver because he had insulted some Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents. While this is not against the law, Weaver found that the law was no protection. The BATF subsequently entrapped Weaver into breaking a victimless and unconstitutional gun control law -- sawing off a shotgun barrel just slightly below an arbitrary length pleasing to federal bureaucrats (sixteen inches).
Weaver compares the attempt to make him a criminal (he was subsequently exonerated by a federal jury) with the predicament of New Hampshire State Representative Howard Dickinson. Dickinson was made into a federal criminal as wrongly as was Weaver.
Dickinson had inadvertently left a revolver in a bag that he had as carryon luggage at the Manchester, NH airport. When the bag went through the passenger screening X-Ray machine, the gun was found and Dickinson was an instant criminal. Lack of intent was not important. The head of the Transportation Safety Administration wanted to throw the book (two years in jail) at Dickinson for violating his gun control law.
To their credit, FBI agents exonerated Dickinson after a thorough investigation. He had clearly been guilty of nothing more than an inadvertent mistake. But still the TSA wanted to throw the book at him. Finally the feds settled on a $5,000 civil fine.
One has to ask -- what would have been the harm if Dickinson had boarded the flight with his gun? Since he was unaware he had it, it is hard to see what danger his fellow passengers would have been in. And if he had discovered the gun in flight? The only negative outcome would have been for a terrorist who tried to hijack the plane: Dickinson might have been able to save himself and a planeload of passengers.
If Dickinson had managed to get on board one of the September 11 flights, would the passengers have been endangered by Dickinson? What if the pilots that day had ended up with guns in the cockpits, would the day likely have ended the same as it did with the death of thousands of defenseless victims?
Weaver makes the point that gun control led to September 11.
I am reminded that one of the clearest examples of the acceptance so many of us have of being defenseless thanks to gun control laws was a last conversation between a passenger on Flight 97 and his wife. The flight crashed in a field in Pennsylvania following a desperate struggle between some of the passengers and the hijackers.
One of the passengers told his wife that he and some others were about to try to subdue the hijackers. Her last words to him were: "Please, wait for the authorities."
Clearly, waiting for the authorities to protect us can be hazardous to our health, but using a gun for defense may make us a criminal. Welcome to the Brave New World of Gun Control where we become criminals when we use guns to resist (or be prepared to resist) criminals.
No.
Kind of ironic how the government(s) want us to trust them, but they hold us in comtempt.
How can you say that? Before all the gun control garbage, had anyone tried to hijack a plane with a box cutter they would have been shot to peices.
True, they would have had guns, but so would some of the passengers. And then the passengers would have had a fighting chance.
No, they merely would've bought up the entire first class cabin and had a dozen shooters on each flight.
Stating that governmental restrictions on weapons lead up to 9/11 sounds like one of Howard Deans theories. I could just as easily say that the Wright Brothers flight in Kitty Hawk lead up to 9/11 and be even more correct.
Probably worse than the chance the folks on Flight 93 had. A dozen shooters who know each other would win over a bunch of passengers who never saw each other before hitting the departure lounge.
I think an unarmed brawl is a better deal in this case, as it favors the many over the few, without respect for organization.
Ok, how many americana were hijacked and killed on american planes, back when it was legal to carry a gun on an airliner?
Please provide a list.
The passengers had a fighting chance , as evidenced by those who defeated the terrorists over Pa.
The problem the other passengers faced was the threat of a bomb exploding. Guns or knives makes no difference, the jihadists were outnumbered 20 to 1 but prior to 9/11 the common wisdom was not to fight back for fear of a bomb.
The common wisdom no longer obtains.
An ethic commonly preaced by anti-gun nuts.
Two shooters get up and start hijacking--and get shredded in a hail of gunfire.
The other ten can pull heat under cover of "reacting to the hijacking," and they will know who's packing and who isn't. They proceed to engage the shooters--and win easily.
There's a reason the sky marshals make everyone freeze if they have to move--because they understand the situation I've described a lot better than a pickup group who doesn't even know who the friendlies are.
The number one reason for an airline not allowing guns on their airplanes is that the carrier of that gun may have designs on the owners airplane. That I have to state that amazes me.
From what I've read on other forums, even the feds aren't carrying frangibles.
They are probably assuming that they prefer the risk of shooting a hole in an airplane over the risk of their bullets not penetrating a terrorist enough.
New York City has an ordinance that prohibits the arming of skyscrapers (as well as private citizens).
1) A failure of the federal government to perform one of it's most basic functions: securing the borders.
2) A failure of the federal government to correctly prioritize criminal investigations.
3) Federal infrignement on the Right of the people to bear arms, by banning passengers and pilots from flying armed.
4) A mindset of "don't fight back" that has been perpetrated by governments at all levels.
Heard what?
What part of private property are you having trouble with? Do you want the government telling private companies that they must allow passengers to carry loaded weapons on their planes?
Actually, you'll get both. An ugly barroom brawl is more likely to prevent the latter.
Sure! I'm sure he's bluff--
Well Eris, I have no fear of the bogey-man or guns. Some of my guns are my best friends but I prefer the amateurs check their guns at the gate like we used to do in Texas Honky Tonks. Makes for a more enjoyable ride.
No, some reports had some of the hijackers telling the passengers they had bombs.
But that isn't the point. IF there were guns allowed on planes, that wouldn't stop someone on 9-11, with that pre-attack mindset, from comandeering a plane with that tactic.
IOW, concealed carry on planes is not the panacea some on this thread are implying.
It's the same as that "failed to secure our borders" meme. With literally thousands of miles of borders and coastline, getting 19 men into this country isn't very hard, and is almost impossible to stop.
Oh, I get it. If the government had not banned concealed carry on airlines and IF the airlines then had not restricted guns due to the threat of hijacking and IF there were some passengers on those flights who had the training necessary to sight and hit their targets in a chaotic situation and IF the hijackers didn't have expolosives with dead man switches, then gun control MAY have lead to 9/11?
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.