Skip to comments.
AN ANTI-BILL OF RIGHTS EXTREMIST RADICALS ARE PUTTING AMERICANS AT RISK
EtherZone ^
| 5-25-02
| John Bender
Posted on 05/26/2002 9:07:52 AM PDT by SUSSA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: Scotsman will be Free
Scotsman will be Free said: "I'm finished with him [BUSH], and will not vote for him in '04."
Bush is a very successful politician. Some of his success comes from the way that he disarms his enemies with his lack of arrogance.
The way I see it, Bush felt that there would be considerable benefit to leaving Democrats in some high level positions. Mineta was given Transportation. Mineta chose Magaw.
Who would have dreamed in January 2001, that the Department of Transportation would be involved in anything more critical than whether truckers are testing their tire pressures frequently enough or airlines are maintaining their schedules adequately.
The most important posts were those involving Defense, National Security, and the Attorney General.
The best outcome from this point is for the pilots to stage a 100% effective strike making it plain that they expect to be allowed to carry firearms. Congress will hurry legislation which makes the airlines and pilots solely responsible for onboard security of their airplanes. Bush will sign such legislation.
It would then be perfectly reasonable for Bush to expect and ask for Mineta's resignation for failure to anticipate the nation's security needs. There would be little need for Bush to justify losing Democrats from his administration in such a case. Bush might even be able to find a pro-gun Democrat to appoint in Mineta's place.
To: gundog
We dont want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane. Three words: Glaser Safety Slugs.
-------------------------
A 44 special or a 45 ACP will stop a man as though he's been hit by a pick-up truck. They won't do much damage to a plane. I'd make them optional for pilots.
22
posted on
05/26/2002 12:58:50 PM PDT
by
RLK
To: SUSSA
It comes down to this:
If the government "allows" pilots to be armed, then that would be telling the American sheeple that the government isn't the only one who can protect us from "terrorism". The government doesn't want that. We must believe that the federal government, and only the federal government, can protect us from all of life's ills.
To: serinde
Personally I would prefer to let the corporations decide whether they feel that it would enhance security to allow those with CHL to carry guns onboard with them. It is one thing to leave it in the baggage, it is another to have it ready for use. I am not in favor of gun regulation, but I can see how terrorists could forge a CHL and get easy weapons onboard. That would renew assaults on CHLs. The gun control nazis would say look, "CHLs let terrorists carry weapons on planes!!!!!" It would be a disaster for private gun owner rights. Let the corporations decide whether non-government personnel can carry weapons onboard. That puts the onus of security squarely in the hands of the corporation and government and any failure cannot be shifted to CHL because the corporation allowed CHL owners to carry weapons onboard. A blanket law requiring CHL owners to be allowed to carry guns onboard would make it too easy to put the blame on CHLs.
Another thing. Put a friggin bathroom in the cockpit if there isn't one handy. That way the pilots can have their munchies in the cockpit with them and not have to leave during the flight. It's the perfect way to make the cockpit self-contained.
24
posted on
05/26/2002 1:40:24 PM PDT
by
dheretic
To: SUSSA
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
25
posted on
05/26/2002 1:43:16 PM PDT
by
blackie
To: William Tell
My understanding is that Bush, not Mineta, chose Magaw. This view is, it seems to me, supported by Magaw's previous appointments in George H.W. Bush's administration.
26
posted on
05/26/2002 2:15:19 PM PDT
by
caltrop
To: Grut
This is one of the hard truths conservatives are going to have to admit.
27
posted on
05/26/2002 2:47:19 PM PDT
by
nanny
To: William Tell
The 'Bush knows what he is doing and we will all realize it in time' is wearing a little thin.
In the meantime, we are being sold out at every turn.
He is a politician and probably a likeable person, but does not have the best interests of America and Americans at heart.
There is no other way to interpret his actions since taking office.
Yessir!! He is disarming the democrats and giving them everything they ask for and more. Just who is getting 'taken' here? Might it just be the (gulp) us??
28
posted on
05/26/2002 2:51:51 PM PDT
by
nanny
To: Dan from Michigan
In the exec branch, the buck stops with the president.
Unfortunately, the schmucks don't.
As most Presidents learn, the hard way.
To: nanny
The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.
To: BluesDuke
As most Presidents learn, the hard way. I think as of now, the odds are even-up if Bush wins in 2004. (I know I know...aprroval ratings is at 1995%...)
It's all soft support. Soft support doesn't mean jack. John Engler in 1990 never had more than 38% in the polls...except election day..where he had 50.6% in the polls, the only one he won.
In my case his vote will depend on whether he signs or vetos the ugly gun ban. If he signs it....I don't even want to think about it.
To: Dan from Michigan
I think it will depend on a number of things including whether he signs the gun ban. (Things like the farm welfare bill, like the campaign finance reform bill, like the education bill, like the steel and soft lumber tariffs, among others.) They can fall under a general heading of government continuing to bother itself about nearly every last thing on earth, above and beyond its competence or its Constitutional mandate, except the one legitimate function it does have and the Constitution consecrates, namely: protecting American citizens, their rights and liberties, from assault from abroad and predators at home (real predators, including political predators, please, and not mere vicemongers). That (and not this "what did Bush know and when did he know it" nonsense re the atrocities of 9/11) will likely be the deciding factor in whether or not Mr. Bush proves a one-term wonder.
The road to Damnocratic hell is paved with Republican't good intentions.
To: SUSSA
Over 70% of the professional pilots think they need to be armed as one last chance before the F- 16's put a heat seeking missel into a plane on its way to crash into a building. I was against pilots being armed when this whole argument first came up, but it's this aspect that has caused me to change my mind.
Imagine, too, being the pilot of the F-16 that has to bring down a planeload of fellow Americans.
33
posted on
05/26/2002 9:59:13 PM PDT
by
dbwz
To: SUSSA
Err... why do we still have a Transportation Security Administration anyway?
34
posted on
05/26/2002 10:02:49 PM PDT
by
arimus
To: SUSSA
"We dont want them shooting firearms with the potential of bringing down the plane." Oh yes. It's much better to have these aircraft shot down by NATO fighters. What else would one expect from the former Chief Butcher of the BATF?
To: Washington_minuteman
There is no question that Magaw is an anti-Bill of Rights extremist. It seems strange that the Bush Administration would put this Clintonista in charge of the Transportation Security Administration. No, it's not strange at all to those of us who have been paying attention, is it? The Bush Presidency merely bought us a little time - that's all.
36
posted on
05/27/2002 12:44:14 AM PDT
by
Noumenon
To: dheretic
but I can see how terrorists could forge a CHL and get easy weapons onboard. That would renew assaults on CHLs. The gun control nazis would say look, "CHLs let terrorists carry weapons on planes!!!!!" Interesting point. But don't forget that people with real CHLs would also have guns available, not just the bad guys.
Also, the govt. is trying to allow LEOs to carry anywhere they want. Your argument could also be used in those cases, which I don't think they have thought about. Perhaps they should!
37
posted on
05/27/2002 6:55:40 AM PDT
by
serinde
To: gundog
"Three words: Glazer Safety Slugs."You should know better. This is just falling into the myth about "explosive decompression".
If you are going to shoot a terrorist on an airplane, you want to kill him, not just make him mad.
To: wcbtinman
I do know better...but it's an answer for those that worry about explosive decompression, or trigger-happy pilots that shoot with the same precision as NYC cops.
39
posted on
05/27/2002 9:18:25 AM PDT
by
gundog
Comment #40 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson