Did gun control lead to September 11?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
http://www.americandaily.com/item/4337
Did Gun Control Lead To September 11?
Larry Pratt, 01/15/04
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.

Visit Tom's website at
http://www.gunowners.org

Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for more than 25 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

Copyright © 2003 Larry Pratt.
 
Do we need boxcutter legislation? They're not alowed on planes now, but what about all those weapons of mass destruction we can find for sale cheap in any home center; no waiting period or anything!? What's to keep them from falling into the wrong hands?
 
No, gun control didn't lead to 9/11. Eight years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing about the attacks against the US caused 9/11.

Bin Laden was convinced the US was a paper tiger and he could do as he pleased. His group did the first WTC bombing, participated in the "Blackhawk Down" fighting, blew up two embassies, blew up the USS Cole and performed numerous attacks against other non-US targets. This included attempting to assassinate the Pope and blowing up multiple airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic Ocean.

The combined response by Clinton involved blowing up an unmanned terrorist training camp and an aspirin factory. When the Sudan offered on three occassions to hand Bin Laden over to the US, Clinton's reply was we had no legal basis to hold him and recommended they simply deport him. So he packed up and moved to Afghanistan.
 
Gun control -- that is, infringements on the right to keep and bear arms -- made the September 11 attacks *possible*.

I have refused to fly since *1978*. I didn't want to get on their planes bad enough to have my rights violated to do it. I wouldn't even *think* about traveling by air now, anymore than I would consider visiting or spending any money or doing any business in say, Ohio or Missouri, or having a wedding in a hotel that had a "No Guns" policy.

I hope all the airlines go under financially. Ditto for Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, New York, and California, and any and every place with "No Concealed Weapons Allowed On The Peremises" signs posted.

Maimaktes
 
If the DEA ATF FBI CIA state and local cops and the US Military were not so busy hassling otherwise law-abiding American drug users and/or gun owners, a lot more resources could have been devoted to ferreting out this country's true enemies. Alas, even now we haven't learned this lesson.
 
Sadly things look to be going the way of a Nightmarish mixing of Demolition Man, The Siege and Enemy of the State (and a few other shtf movies).:(
 
Please, wait for the authorities.

Famous last words. Literally.


I'll argue that gun control didn't lead to 9/11, what lead to it is an erosion of people's ability and willingness to "take care of business" on the individual, national, and international levels.

Delegating critical functions to the annointed ones will always, always, always bite you in the butt.

9/11 happened because people accepted bad advice: "don't draw attention to yourself, let the hijackers do what they want, and wait for the situation to be resolved on the ground by professionals."

So, no, after some thought, gun control didn't lead to 9/11. Gun control isn't the cause.

It's the symptom.
 
gunsmith,

"Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" means "after this therefore because of this." It's the logical fallacy of assuming that if A preceded B then A caused B -- "I went outside in my blue suit, and it started raining; therefore, wearing blue suits causes rain."
 
The week before 9/11/01

I was telling people on
http://www.craigslist.org
that the Taliban would attack America because all the gun control has made us a weak nation.
Its a little better now, but still pretty bad. I was talking to the parents of
a victim of 9/11/01 (died in the wtc when the first plane hit)
and I told them that Bush is dragging his feet on arming pilots,all they could think to say was "well pilots shouldn't carry guns all the time,like when they're walking down the street" I said "why let him fly a 747 airplane if he can't be trusted with a pistol?"
:rolleyes:
NY'ers can be worse then Californicators sometimes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top