Nonsense. Point one, I didn't claim that sources were unavailable or nonexistent, I said that at BEST the sources would NOT show Bush saying that he opposed arming pilots. Case in point, you still haven't quoted Bush saying that he opposed arming them.
Point two, Magaw did represent Bush up until Bush fired him and signed the second pro-gun pilot-arming bill. That's not exactly a pattern which would support your claim of Bush "opposing" arming pilots.
Point three, for sources on the two pro-gun bills, you have ALREADY conceded that Bush signed into law the bill that federalized airport security workers (and that bill contained the first arming pilots provision, a "test" in which 2,500 pilots were eligible for training and packing firearms). In addition, you've already conceded that Bush has fired the ONLY Bush-administration official who claimed to oppose arming pilots. Now you want sources for what you've already conceded?! Oh please. It's not like showing one more source is going to open your tightly closed-mind.
Point 4, you've not managed to substantiate your own claims with sources. Citing the media is NOT the same as citing Bush on a position. Just because the media printed it doesn't make it an official Bush position.
In sum: Bush has signed two pro-gun bills into law (you've conceded that one of those exists). Bush has fired Magaw (the only administration official that you've been able to find who even temporarily harbored any public anti-gun sentiment in GWB's administration). Bush directed Ashcroft and Olson to change the official U.S. position on "individual" 2nd Amendment rights, and Bush has a history as governor back in his Texas days for signing CCW into law.
Against those facts, you've managed to cite some press lackeys and one fired official.
Gee, I wonder which argument is right?!