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

Skip to comments.

RON PAUL: "PILOTS vs. BUREAUCRATS"
Ron Paul's website ^ | 5-6-02 | Ron Paul

Posted on 05/06/2002 7:33:30 AM PDT by oursacredhonor

More than 20,000 airline pilots presented a petition to Congress last week, demanding the right to carry guns in the cockpit to prevent future terrorist hijackings. Pilots from all of the major unions, including the large AirLine Pilots Association, overwhelmingly favor having the choice to carry a gun when they fly. These pilots are the men and women who actually stand in harm's way in the event of future hijacking attempts, and surely we should trust their judgment over the judgment of armchair bureaucrats and pundits in Washington. Yet the Transportation department continues to ignore both the wisdom of pilots and federal law by refusing to implement rules allowing firearms in the cockpit.

Pilots already fought this fight last November. Congress passed an armed pilots provision as part of a larger airline safety bill, and the President signed the legislation. Transportation Secretary Mineta, however, has a long history of opposition to gun rights as a Congressman- and his anti-gun bias is interfering with his ability to do his job. He is no longer a lawmaker. His job now is to implement the laws passed by Congress. Yet like the IRS, the Transportation department simply won't follow laws it doesn't like. This illustrates perfectly how we have come to be governed by unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats who constantly undermine the legislative process.

The case for arming pilots is simple: the fundamental duty of any pilot is to ensure the safe operation of his aircraft. Safety is utterly compromised if a terrorist takes control of a plane or violently attempts to do so. Armed pilots act as a last line of defense for themselves, their passengers, and people on the ground. Firearms in the cockpit also serve as a strong deterrent against hijacking attempts.

The arguments against arming pilots are very weak and motivated by an irrational fear of guns. Our pilots are entrusted with the safety of very precious human cargo every time they fly. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women with the skills, temperament, and judgment to fly incredibly complex planes cannot be trusted with simple handguns- and also highly insulting to professional pilots. The arguments about bullets piercing the fuselage are silly, because small bullet holes clearly are less of a worry than a takeover of the flight deck by terrorists! Furthermore, aircraft engineers can point to dozens of incidents where commercial aircraft landed safely even with much larger holes in the cabin.

Legislation I introduced last September simply repeals current Transportation department regulations that prevent airlines from training and arming pilots. This approach puts the decision to arm pilots directly in the hands of the private individuals and companies that actually fly and own the aircraft that are at risk from hijacking. The weaker legislation already passed by Congress allows the Transportation department to establish and run a certification program for pilots wanting to carry guns, which requires active participation by the foot-dragging Mineta. Clearly he will do everything possible to prevent implementation of any government-run armed pilots program.

Pilots, airlines, and understandably nervous travelers deserve more from the federal government. No amount of airport security can guarantee that a terrorist will never again board a domestic flight with a weapon. Since armed marshals can't be on every flight, pilots are the last line of defense against future terrorist acts in the skies. Why on earth does our government insist on disarming the same pilots we otherwise trust with our lives?


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armingpilots; ronpaul; ronpaullist

1 posted on 05/06/2002 7:33:30 AM PDT by oursacredhonor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
I love Ron Paul!
2 posted on 05/06/2002 7:47:07 AM PDT by Dixie republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
--I am not usually a supporter of work stoppages but it looks to me like the only way to get action on this is for the pilots to issue an ultimatum--"we are armed by thus and such date or the planes don't fly"-period.
3 posted on 05/06/2002 7:54:05 AM PDT by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
From World Net Daily, May 03, 2002...

APSA says Congress already authorized pilots to carry guns in cockpits in airline security legislation signed by President Bush last fall. But the provision leaves the decision up to Transportation Security Administration chief John Magaw.

Magaw held discussions about arming pilots with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta earlier this week, but no decision had yet been made, reported the Post.

One Transportation official told the paper that a decision was likely by next week.

World Net Daily

Figured I'd better get this in now before the Bush bashers get here from the other thread.

4 posted on 05/06/2002 7:59:46 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
the provision leaves the decision up to Transportation Security Administration chief John Magaw.

When (not if) Magaw blocks arming pilots, Bush should replace him.

When (not if) Bush fails to replace Magaw, Bush will be fully responsible for pilots not being armed.

5 posted on 05/06/2002 8:05:21 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Yep..Mineta worried about bus drivers and train crews wanting to be armed if pilots are. Most of these guys are prior military or currently assigned reservists trusted with 30mm cannons 500lb bombs and other assorted munitions...and cant be trusted with handguns? When I compare these guys to what we've seen lately from our affirmative action LEOs and armed mall security found out to be prior felons...well...it doesnt make a whole lot of sense. But then again "What's sense got to do with it"
6 posted on 05/06/2002 8:32:58 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
The pilots don't need Bushs' or Manettas' ok .. they need to "walk" .... Three days max and the Pres and all his globalist buddies would get the message .... This is no Bush bash ... he's only an infection in the sore called "Pilots with no stones". No group in America is better poised to strike for themselves and the Country but they love the big bucks more than they love the Republic !
7 posted on 05/06/2002 8:48:34 AM PDT by Marobe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Pilots with guns scare ABC's Cokie Roberts because "airplanes is one of the few places I feel safe from guns. Having some pilot who's gone off his nut for some reason running around with a gun does not make me feel safe." This Week co-host Sam Donaldson stood with Roberts against guns, even when pressed by George Will about whether he wished the pilots had guns on September 11th.

During the roundtable segment on the May 5 This Week with, for now, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, Donaldson raised how commercial airline pilots have signed a petition to allow them to carry guns in the cockpit.

The prospect horrified Roberts, who denounced the idea: "I don't feel safer. Airplanes is one of the few places I feel safe from guns. Having some pilot who's gone off his nut for some reason running around with a gun does not make me feel safe."

George Stephanopoulos, the future solo host of the program, pointed out: "That's always a danger. That person is always in control of the plane and could fly it into the ground if he wants to..."

George Will quipped: "It is the case, I think, that support for pilots being armed increases as people have more and more experience with so-called airport security."

Will soon asked Donaldson: "Do you or do you not wish the pilots on September 11th had been armed? Yes or no Sam."
Donaldson: "Well I wish that somebody-"
Will: "That's not a yes or a no."
Donaldson: "Well, when I asked Secretary Powell for a yes or a no question we heard two or three minutes and I and I'm happy to do it."
Will: "The prosecution rests."
Roberts interjected: "Suppose the hijackers had pulled the gun out of the pilot's hand if the pilot had a gun?"
Donaldson came to Roberts' side: "I don't know whether it would have made any difference. If it could have made a difference of course you would want it to happen. But I think, in the long run, guns in the cockpit are not a good idea. I join Cokie."

What if the hijacker would have pulled the gun out of the pilot's hand? C'mon Cokie! What would have happened? Tell us!

What if the pilot had killed the guy entering the cockpit? Cokie, you ignorant slut...

8 posted on 05/06/2002 9:38:12 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Ron Paul list;madfly
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
9 posted on 05/06/2002 9:42:22 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Minetta and Ridge have both proven to be bad appointments. Minetta especially.
10 posted on 05/06/2002 9:49:03 AM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
When (not if) Bush fails to replace Magaw, Bush will be fully responsible for pilots not being armed.

Uhh. Seems the when has already come and gone, meaning Bush IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE for this fiasco.

Kinda makes you wonder how serious our "war" on terrorists is.

What charade!

11 posted on 05/06/2002 1:01:05 PM PDT by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OWK, Patriot76, Mulder, RLK, sinkspur, VRW Conspirator, Iscool, shield, supercat, brityank, Ho
ping for Ron Paul
12 posted on 05/06/2002 4:42:59 PM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: madfly
If we're gonna be forced to take a World Government, Ron Paul for Sec General.
13 posted on 05/06/2002 4:46:32 PM PDT by It'salmosttolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Ron Paul has it 100% on this one. Simple, direct, and correct.
14 posted on 05/06/2002 7:28:22 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Thanks for the heads up!
15 posted on 05/06/2002 10:21:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these people are saying a device to propel 1/2 oz of metal at 950fps (a .45ACP pistol) is too dangerous for a pilot to handle, but a device which can propel over 250,000 pounds of aluminum and jet fuel at the same speed(*) is not?

(*)I don't think a typical jetliner can survive such speeds, but my understanding is that in a powered dive many jetliners can break the sound barrier. The airframe will also be broken by such a stunt, but the pieces would for awhile anyway be travelling at about the speed of sound--faster than a .45ACP bullet.

16 posted on 05/06/2002 11:13:18 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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