THE CABINET'S DEMOCRAT (Guns for Pilots)

Townhall.com ^ | March 23, 2002 | Robert Novak

[Korth]

Republican criticism of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the only Democrat in President Bush's Cabinet, is rising because of his opposition to arming airline pilots.

The new airline security act allows individual airlines, with the approval of the Transportation Department, to decide whether to arm pilots. Mineta is opposed to the provision. So is Jane Garvey, the Clinton administration holdover who is leaving as head of the Federal Aviation Administration.

A footnote: Opposition by Mineta and Garvey is more than an aberration by two Democrats in a Republican administration. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge also opposes armed pilots -- suggesting that could be President Bush's position.

[Korth]

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge also opposes armed pilots -- suggesting that could be President Bush's position.

Click on the link for some other interesting items. It would appear that Bush is not as pro-gun and pro-self defense as many people had thought.

[AzJP]

I don't understand this.
The Act gives Mineta the authority to OK or Deny a request.
Does he want mandatory Yes?
Does he want mandatory No Way?
Does he want to NOT have the authority?
Most pilots want the option.
Oh well, another columnist misses the point.
T

[Sabertooth]

Offer airline passengers options for two types of flights:

One with armed pilots and racial profiling, and one without.

Let the market decide.

[Ken522]

So which way is it? What about the pilots themselves? Do they want to arm themselves? Shouldn't they be trusted with that authority? After all, the pilots are flying the aircraft - shouldn't they also be able to decide about arming themselves?

[pabianice]

Within the aviation community, Garvey is a continuing joke. Her "qualifications" for being FAA Administrator are (1) her fund-raing activities for Clinton's second presidential run and (2) her gender. (Remember Clinton's pledge to make his cabinet look like America? We didn't know when he said it that he meant stupid, under indictment, communist, and incompetent). Garvey is not a pilot and has, in fact, never flown an aircraft (Hey! Let's make her the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs! She's never actually been near a military post, but hey! Same qualifications!). Her "background" is in highway beautification (I am not making this up) -- you know, planting bushes in the median along state highways. Sje also did a term as the hack appointee running MassPort (same qualifications -- big fund-raiser for the Massachusetts Democratic Party). To the Repubs everlasting shame, they approved her for FAA Administrator while knowing of her high doofus quotient. In her five years running the FAA we've seen the near destruction of general aviation; thge crippling of the airline industry; and let's not forget 9-11, brought to you by FAA security policies that would make my grand nephew's tree fort look secure by comparison.

Garvey needs to speedily be sent to a job she can handle, like licking envelopes back at the DNC.

[arielb]

Actually this is an issue that doesn't bother me so much. Nobody is even talking about letting passengers bring guns on board. We already have the armed sky marshals. They are the only ones trained to shoot on an airplane. This requires months of special training that you don't get in civilian or even military firing drills.

[Righty1]

Pithy enough for even the king of PC O'Reilly!

[Righty1]

Hopefully there is a pilot on every plane. Not so for the enigmatic sky marshalls whose big accomplishment to date is beating the hell out of a passenger who needed to pee.

[Righty1]

Ridge and Mineta share the same IQ point.

[Eagle74]

Actually this is an issue that doesn't bother me so much. Nobody is even talking about letting passengers bring guns on board. We already have the armed sky marshals. They are the only ones trained to shoot on an airplane. This requires months of special training that you don't get in civilian or even military firing drills.

You are completely misinformed on this issue. First, the sky marshals will never be on all flights, in fact we will be lucky if there's 1 on every 100 flights. Second, modern Saftey ammo(plastic bullet shells filled with bird shot) is designed not to penetrate the pressure cabin. Because of the fact that a terrorist controlled aircraft is so dangerous, once a plane is taken over, all the passengers are dead anyway, as the airforce has orders to shoot them down. So levels of training are immaterial, as the terrorists must be stopped or everyone dies. Third, and the most telling point, had our 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms not been infringed, 9/11 would never have happened, as an armed citizenry will defend it self. The common view that the Government will protect us, is an illusion. To protect us all the Government would have to provide everyone with their own bodyguards, an economic impossiblity. So as one of the heros of 9/11 said when he decided to fight for his life and ours, after the government had violated and abandoned him, unarmed and untrained. "LET'S ROLL"

[Puppage]

These Liberals will be the death of us. Lets see...no guns for the pilots in the cockpit, but it's ok for the Air Marshalls to have potential shootout in the passenger cabin?THAT'S safer? Okay..."shootout" is overly dramatic, but you get my point. Just a thought to ponder.

[=Intervention=]

Absolutely. Perfectly said!!!

[William Tell]

arielb said: "We already have the armed sky marshals. They are the only ones trained to shoot on an airplane. This requires months of special training that you don't get in civilian or even military firing drills."

Oh, of course.

We are much better off permitting hijackers armed with box-cutters to kill the crew and fly the plane into tall buildings rather than risk what might happen if an "untrained" pilot has a firearm.

This very issue is why hospitals and morgues are full of injured and dead criminals who attempted to use guns without training and why we really don't need laws against using firearms to commit crimes. They are such a risky and ineffective tool in untrained hands.

[Jesse]

Tom Ridge also opposes armed pilots -- suggesting that could be President Bush's position.

Suggesting? It is his position...you can be sure if it were otherwise, even these worthless bureaucrats of his Mineta and Ridge would be on record supporting armed pilots.

Oh well...besides most Americans with any common sense, who else but Sarah Brady, George Bush, Tom Ridge and "Underperformin' Norman" Mineta wouldn't trust the captain or copilot of a 395 ton jet airplane speeding to its destination at 450 mph with 400+ souls on board with a nail file, much less a gun?

Bush is a NWORINO. At least more and more people are starting to see this

[BenR2]

What's to understand? Air Marshal's may have guns and pilots may not. FBI thugs can carry anywhere anytime, but you and I may not.

The Government can't get ENOUGH guns on its agents. It really prefers that you and I unilaterally disarm in the name of "decency," so they won't have to disarm us forcefully.

In other words: The FedGov is ALWAYS comfortable with guns (as long as they are in the hands of FedGov agents). What makes them nervous is guns in the hands of ANYBODY outside the Government -- be they John Doe or be they airline pilots.

How else do you get this logic: We are safer flying with armed air marshals on the planes, but we are less safe with armed pilots flying on the planes?

[BenR2]

Bush is a NWORINO. At least more and more people are starting to see this.

Not sure I agree with you totally, yet, on this, but I'm beginning to think he is quacking a bit too much like one of late.

[BenR2]

arielb said: "We already have the armed sky marshals. They are the only ones trained to shoot on an airplane. This requires months of special training that you don't get in civilian or even military firing drills."

Let's set this up more realistically: "arielb is saying that we are safer with highly trained air marshals flying on one plane in 100 than we are with less highly trained armed pilots flying on 95 planes out of a hundred."

Talk about a no-brainer.

[luvzhottea]

Yep we don't want to trust pilots with a pistol--an airplane yes, a pistol NO. What nuts these leftists are.
2nd Amendment Rights:
Attacks on American Muslims Reaffirm Wisdom of 2nd Amendment

Gun Owners of America

Women Against Gun Control

The Firearms Coalition NEAL KNOX