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

Skip to comments.

DID GUN CONTROL LEAD TO SEPTEMBER 11?
gunowners.org ^ | January 9, 2004 | Larry Pratt

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2a; bang; banglist; disarmed; larrypratt; rkba; victims
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161 next last
"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe; Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
1 posted on 01/09/2004 5:03:29 PM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Donate To Free Republic

2 posted on 01/09/2004 5:05:43 PM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

The only restriction on lawful American citizens carrying firearms on an airplane should be that they must be loaded with frangibles.

3 posted on 01/09/2004 5:07:10 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
DID GUN CONTROL LEAD TO SEPTEMBER 11?

No.

4 posted on 01/09/2004 5:08:23 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
...and double no.
5 posted on 01/09/2004 5:09:37 PM PST by TankerKC (...and, don't flash at me or I'll never move over!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Lead up to - no.
Allow things to go down the way they did - yes.
6 posted on 01/09/2004 5:10:27 PM PST by tomakaze ( Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Excellent.

Kind of ironic how the government(s) want us to trust them, but they hold us in comtempt.

7 posted on 01/09/2004 5:10:31 PM PST by kentuckyusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
No
8 posted on 01/09/2004 5:10:53 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Agreed.

What Mr. Pratt ignores is that the terrorists wouldn't have been carrying boxcutters if they were allowed to carry firearms--and guns favor the few and organized over the many and unorganized.
9 posted on 01/09/2004 5:11:51 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
DID GUN CONTROL LEAD TO SEPTEMBER 11? No.

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.

10 posted on 01/09/2004 5:12:10 PM PST by kentuckyusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
It has always been my contention that 911 was not so much a "security failure" as a Second Ammendment failure....
11 posted on 01/09/2004 5:13:02 PM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

They wouldn't have tried at all had they thought that 10-25% of the other passengers were packing.

12 posted on 01/09/2004 5:13:17 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Sigh. It will be lost on a great many 'conservatives" here
13 posted on 01/09/2004 5:13:33 PM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
What Mr. Pratt ignores is that the terrorists wouldn't have been carrying boxcutters if they were allowed to carry firearms--and guns favor the few and organized over the many and unorganized.

True, they would have had guns, but so would some of the passengers. And then the passengers would have had a fighting chance.

14 posted on 01/09/2004 5:13:51 PM PST by kentuckyusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eris
They wouldn't have tried at all had they thought that 10-25% of the other passengers were packing.

No, they merely would've bought up the entire first class cabin and had a dozen shooters on each flight.

15 posted on 01/09/2004 5:14:49 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
There are good reasons for private airlines restricting passengers from carrying guns on their planes.

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.

16 posted on 01/09/2004 5:15:09 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah


And they would have died in a hail of bullets from the aft and fore.


17 posted on 01/09/2004 5:15:49 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07


Name one - assuming those carrying were restricted to only carrying frangibles?

18 posted on 01/09/2004 5:16:28 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kentuckyusa
True, they would have had guns, but so would some of the passengers. And then the passengers would have had a fighting chance.

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.

19 posted on 01/09/2004 5:16:33 PM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; *bang_list
I havn't heard one yet.
20 posted on 01/09/2004 5:17:37 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (DON'T BLAME ME! I Voted for McClintock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161 next last

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