In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
IS GW BUSH TO BLAME ?
Zuider Zee
Member Posts: 41 ✭✭
I've read several posts on the arming of pilots - one guy blames Bush for stonewalling the bill he signed into law last November giving pilots the right to carry arms in the cockpit, another guy said Mineta was blocking implementation of the law. Who's right here ?
How can Mineta block implementation of a passed and signed law?
Why is it that Bush always gets blamed for things like this?
I'm confused.
Zee
How can Mineta block implementation of a passed and signed law?
Why is it that Bush always gets blamed for things like this?
I'm confused.
Zee
Comments
Happiness is a warm gun
Of course he's not for arming pilots.
Happiness is a warm gun
You said "Bushes press people said that Bush shares the opinion with respect to arming the pilots, of Minetta and Ridge. Both Ridge and Manetta said they do not want pilots to be "allowed" to arm themselves".
What is your source of this information? Where can I read this ?
Happiness is a warm gun
WASHINGTON -- Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said he opposes pilots' demands for firearms to defend the cockpit against hijackers but would support stun guns that use an electric current to temporarily incapacitate an attacker.
When the user is properly trained, "I think that stun guns are the way to go," Mineta said in an interview with The Times, the first time he has taken a position on the emotionally charged issue. Two airlines, United and Phoenix-based Mesa, already have expressed interest in the nonlethal weapons in anticipation of government approval.
In polls, about 80% of airline pilots say they would feel more secure if they could respond to aggressors with lethal force. Pilots unions have petitioned the Transportation Department to allow volunteers to be trained as deputy air marshals and issued semiautomatic pistols.
But airlines are adamantly opposed to providing pilots with firearms, fearing that flying bullets would damage planes and prompt lawsuits if passengers were struck unintentionally.
According to their manufacturers, stun guns are effective more than 90% of the time--not enough to satisfy some critics.
Mineta said federal requirements that airlines replace flimsy cockpit doors with stronger, bulletproof versions should virtually eliminate the chances a pilot would have to resort to any weapon. The new doors will replace temporary metal bars installed after the Sept. 11 attacks. The cockpit is now required to be locked during flight.
"What we have done is make the whole cockpit more secure, which means there is minimal need" for weapons, Mineta said in the interview this week.
He added that he opposes a request by the flight attendants union to make stun guns available to its members in the passenger cabin. "Having a stun gun get into the wrong hands in the cabin environment is a real potential, and I've got some concerns with that," he said.
It's unclear whether the Transportation Department would require airlines to issue stun guns to pilots or merely set guidelines for training and use and leave the final decision to individual carriers. Mineta said his comments represent his own position and not a final decision by the department. Airline officials said a ruling is expected soon.
I haven't been able to find anything anywhere quoting George W. Bush as being against firearms - and pilots with firearms; not even quotes from Ari Frleischer.
I'm still looking.
Happiness is a warm gun
air marshalls handle security???
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets
"Ridge's and Mineta's opposition makes it unlikely that the Bush administration will permit guns in cockpits.... White House officials say Ridge's view reflects the thinking of President Bush, who has not commented publicly on the issue."
-- -- USA Today, 3/4/02
I have also read that the airlines are the ones that are asking for the pilots not to be armed, to avoid lawsuits in case of a wrongful death by glancing bullets.
My point in this post is that no one has directly quoted George W. Bush as being against guns, and against pilots carrying guns. Until I hear him say it (not innuendo from the press or anyone else) my opinion will not change.
Thanks for the information.
Zee
You guys have most of the training already.
White house officials said the president supports minetta and Ridges view. Do you think that white house officials would make such a comment if GW did not feel that way? No chance in hell. Those are Bushes feelings, whether you hear it from the lips of GW, or his white house officials.
Happiness is a warm gun
No matter how good a job that GW does, someone will find fault with it. I agree with you, he's as pro-gun as gets; yet there are others out there in never never land that think otherwise. Some dammed-o-crats are still spouting off that he stole the election, and are determined to make him look bad, at least in their own minds. They think by tearing him down that makes them bigger. It does make them bigger ---- bigger a** holes! By degrading him and his decisions, and inferring things that aren't correct, they hope to turn the tide against him. Just imagine how bad things would be if AlGoron was in the White House !!
"If you can do it, it ain't braggin'".
JR Ewing - "Dallas"
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun
Many of my retired SF friends are working as Air Marshalls.
Just got off the phone with one, and he said the job is very boring. The pilots that he's worked with are glad he's there, but are worried that a stray bullet could kill a innocent passenger, or worse cause enough damage to the aircraft to cause it to crash. Not one of the pilots he talked to wanted a gun in the cabin; not even a stun gun!
Just suppose that Bush is privy to this information; and even though he signed the bill into law had enough concerns thrown at him by the airline companies and pilots to have second thoughts.
With that information, what would you do?
"De Oppresso Liber"
Happiness is a warm gun
I dont think you should be carrying concealed. I dont like the idea of people walking around with guns.You might hurt someone. Leave carrying concealed to the professionals.
Happiness is a warm gun
He did sign the bill, and maybe he's waiting for all the smoke to clear. My understanding is that no decision has been made yet, maybe he'll do what you suggested. In Counter Intelligence there's a procedure called "elicitation". The short explanation is to say the wrong thing to gather the right information. That may be what's going on with this. I truly believe that he's a good man, and will try to do what he thinks is best for our country. Old Sf-er and I spent 25 years of our lives in Army Special Forces protecting the freedoms we all enjoy in the US, and one of those freedoms is the right to express our opinions!
Jim
"De Oppresso Liber"
Happiness is a warm gun
If it's unconstituitional the Supreme Court will throw it out anyway, and he's fulfilled his obligation and pledge.
Salzo, since you know so much about everything he does, why don't you run for President? If you win, then every move you make can be cussed and discussed on boards like this ![:d]
Zee
DO YOU KNOW how a veto works? If he vetoed, it would be overturned with a 2/3 vote in Congress. That would not have happend, they did not have that many votes. It is also interesting to note that many who were on the fence on this issue decided to vote for cfr only after GW said he was going to sign.
Do you realize how dangerous your "if it is unconstitutional, the supreme court will throw it out anyway" belief is.
1st off, no matter what anyone says, the bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme court is full of activist judges, who do not care about whether something is unconstitutioonal or not, and base their opinions on whether they like it or not, and not on the constitutionality of an issue. Throw in Enron, and you have a real good chance of having the Supreme court say that this CFR is constitutional. It sure is nice that George Bushwould take a chance and have a bill that he deems unconstitutional, go to the court, and have the court rule that the bill is constitutional. That could happen, and that is why it is completely reprehensible that GW put the constitutuion in such jeopardy. He swore to defend the constitution. He could have defended the constitution from irreprable harm by vetoing that bill, which was his duty. But instead, GW breaks his oath, ignore his constitutional duty, and decides to take a chance with the courts. But ohhh these are little things! Why get so worked up just because Bush has put the constitution in jeopardy, and did not protect and defend the constitution.
And as far as your other comments-Silly and not worth responding to.
Happiness is a warm gun
I agree with you about Salzo. He reminds me of McCarthy; always quick to accuse anyone with differing beliefs of "Communism", or in this case "anti-gunner". He slams any and everyone that disagrees with him.
People like him are know it all - do nothings. He's miserable in life and tries to cure his misery by striking out at the establishment, government or anything else in his path. Arming airline pilots isn't the issue with him; as you can see when bested he jumps to another subject to try and win there. He has a lot to say about everything - and nothing.
I will ignore his posts in the future.
Zee
Your style is very typical of liberal debate. Contribute nothing except personal attacks on the person raising the issues. Deflect attention from the issue, and attack the person you disagree with personally, and avoid defending the issue all together.
Coupled with your silly McCarthy remark(another typical leftist tactic-anyone who disagrees with your position-call him a McCarthyite)it seems very obvious you are a liberal/socialist nitwit.
Happiness is a warm gun
PC=BS
I like how you not only ignored the inconsistencys I poited out in your arguments, but you also called us names while telling us that it is a liberal tactic to call names. You really do have consistency isues bud. I dont know how old you are, but go back to school and take some argument classes. You might have some good points, but when you present them in this fashion you just turn people off. Calling someone a liberal anti-gunner is not going to change their minds about guns!
And what are these inconsistencies that you are refering to. I must have missed them. Please clarify.
And one more thing Einstein; I did not call you an anti gunner, I just asked if you were one.
Happiness is a warm gun
Edited by - salzo on 04/28/2002 14:29:26
You said the following:
1. I dont think you should be carrying concealed. I dont like the idea of people walking around with guns.You might hurt someone. Leave carrying concealed to the professionals.
How is this inconsistent?
Well, You apparently think only professionals should be able to carry concealed, but unpracticed novices should be able to shoot a weapon in an airplane. Is this consistent? I think most would agree that an Airplane with a large amount of people and very sensative equipment is somewhere you do not want a novice shooting.
You also said:
2. Your style is very typical of liberal debate. Contribute nothing except personal attacks on the person raising the issues.
In the last few posts I have seen you do very little but name call towards me.
What did you ignore? I made point 1 earlier and you did not respond to it. You really need to lighten-up. This kind of rampant finger pointing is not helpful in any way. What are you trying to do? Rally more support for guns, or make enemies? It seems like all you are managing to do is make enemies. That's not constructive is it?
Now let me see if I can explain this inconsistency issue, in a way that you can understand. I will try and type slowly.
That comment I made about you not carrying because you are not a professional, because of your comment I DEFINATELY DO NOT WANT TO BE ON AN AIRPLANE WHERE A PILOT IS ARMED.-The first thing that came to mind when I read that, was all of the anti gunners who complain that they do not want to live in a society where people are armed."THERE JOB IS TO FLY"- my job is to play music. But I should have the right to carry and be prepared if something happens while I am doing my job. And again, that sounds like the anti gunners who tell you you should not carry, and rely on the police to protect you.
"ARM SOMEONE WITH PROPER TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE"- It is my understanding that most pilots have had military training, which would mean they have had training in firearms. And as far as experience-what experience do you, or anyone else who chooses to carry a gun for that matter have that is different then the experience that pilots would have? If you do not think that pilots are "experienced enough",do not have the proper training, and are not employed to protect, but to fly a plane, then why do you think you should be allowed to carry a firearm, but pilots should not. Using your reason, one can certainly make the argument that YOU should not be allowed to carry, for the reasons you specified with respect to not allowing pilots to be armed.
And with respect to the name calling-I did not call you an anti-gunner, I only asked if you were an anti-gunner.
But please be specific about what it was that you said that I ignored.What was this brilliant point that you made that I did not respond to? Be specific.
I do not see this name calling against you that you are speaking of-It seems to me you are the one who is relying on that crutch in order to avoid commenting on my responses. Rather than respond, just call me a name caller.
Happiness is a warm gun
As to the claim that pilots with military training (which are maybe half the pilots) have had proper training with pistols. If by that you mean that they shot a Baretta 92 for about a week 25 years ago, then you are correct. I would not call that trained or practiced though, would you? I have no problem with a society full of concealed carry weapons (if those who carry know what they are doing.) However, an Airplane is different than a shopping mall. If someone misses target and hits a wall in a shopping mall, 200 people don't die. However, when you start puting holes in aircraft, very very bad things happen. I'm sure you know alot about fire arms and politics etc. and you seem like a fairly intelligent person, but you should possibly study more about aviation. I want you to come back and tell me what happens when you put a man who hasnt shot a gun in a few years in a high adrenaline situation and then compund it by the fact that if he misses his target by just a few inches he could bring down the entire airplane. this is not anti-gun fear, this is common sence. If you don't want to trust in the government then have private companies provide trained air-marshalls, but dont give guns to un-practiced, un-experienced pilots. That is just asking for trouble.
If you want to have a program where pilots who want to carry must go through several weeks of training and then qualify every few months, then I may change my mind.
Save, research, then buy the best.Join the NRA, NOW!Teach them young, teach them safe, teach them forever, but most of all, teach them to VOTE!
The CCW in Texas came at a time when only a few other states had them, Bush really stuck out his neck to make it happen. I was one of the first to apply and get the permit, and will be on my second renewal next year. The Bush bashers brand him as "possibly anti-gun" then get upset when you stand up for the man. I say this again:
I think George Bush has been good for our country, and I don't have to justify anything or prove it with "examples". Ray Charles could see what he's done in a crisis situation; ("and he hasn't seen anything in a long time!")unfortunately the bashers will continue to bash, no matter what the majority thinks. I think Zee did a good flush job a few posts back, and I also think the flushee is trying to climb back out of the commode!
"If you can do it, it ain't braggin'".
JR Ewing - "Dallas"
You can't say one thing and then do another, and get my vote for dogcatcher much less Pres.
Thats funny. A clinton worshipper speaking about Clinton could not have said it better. No you do not have to justify your beliefs. Just the fact you think he is doing a good job is good enough. All of the broken promises by your hero George Bush be damned.
I could list them, but I am sure you would ignore them and continue waving your pom poms in my face.
And your comment about some people will always complain no matter what the majority thins, is equally hysterical. I guess if the majority thinks it is right, then it must be right.
Keep following those sheep SFER BAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!
Happiness is a warm gun
Edited by - salzo on 04/28/2002 21:07:58
I'm going to do what Zee did, flush you.
You're going to keep going round and round in my toilet bowl until you finally disentegrate and go down the drain.
Continue to be the closet Democrat you are, find fault with everyone on the planet --- I don't care ! Accuse everyone of being anti-gun ---
I don't care ! But, when it comes time to protect your miserable *, don't come crying to me or any of my friends that support our Commander In Chief.
WHOOSH !!!
"If you can do it, it ain't braggin'".
JR Ewing - "Dallas"