RKBA Activism (split from “Immediate California Shall-Issueâ€)

[Gordon Fink]

I don’t want to hijack Jim March’s California CCW thread any further, so I’m starting a new one.

In part, jimpeel wrote:

Look at the number of threads that have been “bitch and moan†sessions on the reluctance of the government to arm pilots.…

Then someone asks THRers if they would like to spend an afternoon … leafletting passengers at airports; and do these “men and women of action,†these “keyboard activists†leap to the challenge? Nah. They have to mow the lawn.

They think that the TSA and the airports will “hear†their voting with their wallets louder than they will if 10 or 12 major airports are leafletted on the same day all over the country urging passengers to contact the TSA and demand that the law be enacted. They think that inaction on their part will be far more effective than having the press there at the airports asking us questions.

The fact is that most of the armchair activists who gather here are all show and no go. They “talk†with their keyboards about the issues and what should be done; but when it comes to actually doing something … are unwilling to give up a few hours of their time standing in an air-conditioned building smiling and handing people a … piece of paper.

I guess that just doesn't “turn them on.†What it does do, however, is define them.

Saying “Yeah, Jim (March), I’m with ya 100%†is easy. I think he might be a bit disappointed when the time comes for them to show up.

I won’t bore anyone with a list of what I personally do to defend and promote the right to keep and bear arms, but suffice it to say that I don’t just complain from behind a keyboard. What I will do is write about leadership.

Leadership and organization are required if we are going to achieve any of our pro-RKBA goals. Jimpeel and I leafleting an airport in Kimball, Nebraska, will accomplish exactly nothing without coordination with and support from our fellow gun owners. We have formed various associations to accomplish this.

These organizations, such as the National Rifle Association or the California Rifle and Pistol Association, are tasked with mobilizing their memberships to action and to coordinate said actions in an effective manner. Individual RKBA activists are usually less than useless on their own, though someone like Jim March can occasionally be an organizing force all by himself. We members, therefore, wait for leadership.

So where is it? Other than merely writing or calling the elected “representatives†who consistently fail us, what would our leaders have us do? March on Washington? March on Sacramento? Pass out leaflets? What? Call us, and many will come.

Jimpeel, on the specific issue of armed pilots, I ask you this. If the President already supports it, how are you and I handing out leaflets at the airport going to make an ounce of difference? If the President really wanted armed pilots, we would have had them on Sept. 12, 2001. But that brings us to the crux of our problem.

I can’t convince even a single fellow gun owner that a vote for G. W. Bush is really no better than a vote for John Kerry where the right to keep and bear arms is concerned. By and large, gun owners don’t care about freedom outside of their own prejudices. Instead, most cling to patently irrational beliefs (such as that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God or that Republicans are defending the RKBA).

Realizing that most gun owners will never make the right choices politically, I await the leadership of our pro-RKBA organizations to at least advance our own little interests. If the NRA calls for volunteers to leaflet LAX, then I’ll volunteer my time and money. If CRPA asks me to rally in Sacramento, then I’ll take a vacation day and go to Sacramento. And if Jim March says go see the sheriff of Kern County, then I’ll spend a weekend in Kern.

So I’ll ask again. Where is the leadership?

~G. Fink

 

[cryptoguru]

I agree about the GW Bush statement.

 

[thefitzvh]

I wouldn't have any objection to handing out flyers at SD Int'l airport. Maybe during spring break I can spend a few hours in the morning doing it. Do you have the flyer in PDF format?



James

 

[Gordon Fink]

Fitz, you’ll have to address that question to jimpeel.

~G. Fink

 

[alan]

Gordon Fink wrote the following:

Jimpeel, on the specific issue of armed pilots, I ask you this. If the President already supports it, how are you and I handing out leaflets at the airport going to make an ounce of difference? If the President really wanted armed pilots, we would have had them on Sept. 12, 2001. But that brings us to the crux of our problem.

While the likes of Kerry might be worse, the present Bush, like his father is, I believe, a FALSE FRIEND at best. Re the arming of pilots, mandated by action of The Congress, Minetta SEEMS to be the stumbling block. Has Bush pulled him up short, told him where he gets off, after all, does he not serve at the pleasure of The President, or has Bush FIRED him, not that one would notice.

 

[jimpeel]

Gordon Fink

I wrote the following at TFL January 30, 2000 at:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25038

I reproduce it here for your, and everyone's, edification.

Why we have to eventually lose the gun debate

This is an e-mail I recently sent to a friend and now share it with the rest of you.

The Buford Furrows of the world are helping whittle away the rights of a nation through their displays of personal animus against whatever the evil du jour happens to be.

The Liberal bent is that the actions of the one must be prevented in the actions of the many. Therefore, the action must be denied to all through the removal of that which is perceived to have allowed the action to occur in the first place.

There is little doubt that if all murders occurred outside the home, between the hours of 10 pm and 3 am, that laws would be passed to prohibit anyone from venturing outside their home between those hours for their own protection and the furtherance of the "greater good" of society.

I was telling my wife yesterday that the reason we will lose the gun issue is that the anti-gun forces are made up of the extremist end of the anti-gun genre with a singular intent to be reached incrementally without compromise. In the mean time the pro-gun forces are made up of the fractured elements of the pro-gun genre that all have differing viewpoints. The compromiser, made up of those fearful that they will lose everything if they don't, are at odds with the hard-liners, who fear they will lose everything if they give any at all. While the anti-gun forces have but one common goal and are willing to stick together to accomplish it, the pro-gun forces won't even talk to each other. Some examples:

The NRA is fractured by the infighting and lawsuits between the forces of Neal Knox, et al, and the forces of LaPierre. http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm

JPFO is fractured by the current lawsuit by Jay Simkin against Aaron Zelman. http://jpfo.org/alert19990808.htm (PAGE NOW DEFUNCT)

The NRA won't cooperate with anyone outside the organization calling everyone else "extremist".

Larry Pratt has sent a nasty-gram to Alan Gottlieb stating Gottlieb and his group are pro-gun control. http://www.saf.org/Prattresponse.htm

The NRA, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, et al, almost NEVER show up together, or in combination, at ANY function.

Conversely:

When was the last time you heard that Sarah Brady was upset at Josh Sugarmann?

That HCI was calling Stop Handgun Violence an extremist organization out of step with America?

When was the last news conference you saw that did not feature multiple anti-gun forces sharing the dais?

Yes, we have to lose eventually. Not because we won't try but because we have no commonality between our forces. We have no leadership on our end and no victims to parade. It is much more effective to parade a wheelchair-bound cripple of gun violence across the stage than to have a healthy person come bounding out on stage because he wasn't crippled by gun violence. There is no "pity" or "sympathy" element for the healthy whose lives were saved by the presence of a gun. "Pity" or "sympathy" is reserved only for those destroyed by the presence of a gun. That is how our society has been structured by years Liberalism.

Remember, under Liberalism, the norm is the aberration. The many must shape their lives around the lives of the few. Hence, the healthy, those who make up the majority of the nation, are the aberration and the injured are the ones who get the press. Normality is the aberration while abnormality is vaunted. This is what I call the reverse effect of empathy. Those who see someone in a wheelchair have great empathy for them but have none whatsoever for those not so afflicted. Hence, there is no word for the lack of empathy for those undeserving of it. This is what the anti-gun forces have used, and will continue to use, to their great advantage.

So there it is. We MUST lose in the end unless we are somehow able to bring our forces together under a single tent just like the anti-gun forces have done. In the absence of that, get ready to line up at the local turn-in station.

So I am going to bounce the ball back into your court with the same question: "Where is the leadership?"

The NRA has a Grassroots division precicely for people like us who don't need "the leadership" and are willing to do the legwork.

Do you think that Jim March was waiting for "the leadership" when he took the initiative and threw the Million Moaning Mommies out of SF General Hospital?

Do you think he was waiting for "the leadership" when he went after Diebold?

Bill Gates started out in a garage. He didn't go looking for "the leadership".

What I am asking is for a bit of initiative on the part of this assemblage to do a small part for the cause.

I am asking them to get us a bit of press.

I am asking that they take one stinking afternoon of their busy life to hand out a few pieces of paper at airports and let the public know of Minetta's stonewalling.

You can slough it off on Bush all you want but the law is in place, the law has been signed, and the law is not being implemented because of Minetta.

The TSA has made the conditions so strict and unwavering that many pilots simply don't want to participate.

They are required to take the time off to go to the one -- count 'em -- ONE place in the entire United States where they can be trained without pay.

They have to pay for the course themselves.

The training goes so far afield of the required training that the course takes several days instead of two.

They have to take psychological tests to determine if they will misuse the firearm but have to take no psychological testing to determine if they are disposed to pushing forward on the yoke at 500 feet after takeoff.

Please. Read these threads:

TSA's threatening e-mail to armed pilots backfires!

Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA

TSA Stonewalling.

Rejected for guns, pilots criticize test

I await your response and, with any luck at all, your willingness to participate in something not fomented by "the leadership".

 

[jimpeel]

thefitzvh

Yes, I have the artwork in a Word document. It wouldn't take much to convert it into a pdf format.

Write me at [email protected] and place "Airport protest" in the subject line. I will send you a copy for your perusal.

 

[jimpeel]

Alan

Re the arming of pilots, mandated by action of The Congress, Minetta SEEMS to be the stumbling block.

Minetta IS the problem. He is, pursuant to the legislation, allowed to create regulations. That is, of course, the problem with most legislation these days; the allowance for bureaucrats to make law under the guise of "regulation".

This has allowed Minetta to stall and stonewall the legislation.

Does anyone here really believe that Bush has nothing better to do than chase guys like Minetta and keep them on the straight and narrow?

 

[Jim March]

Jim Peel: I missed the thread where you were calling for airport leafletting.

To be honest, I like the idea EXCEPT that I think you may have picked the wrong place. The place to do it is outside of a TSA office building, targetting the middle managers and executives coming in and out!

For real effect, we'd need enough people present to get media attention, and do a news alert to local TV (at a minimum) so we get some camera crews down there.

That's the kind of stunt the really media-savvy rabble rousers like Jesse Jackson pull off all the time.

Now, where do you get enough bodies?

Well, the unionized airline employees are getting hammered by the fear of flying caused by lack of armed pilots. So to get a good-sized mob going, network with the unions - the machinists, pilots, flight crews, etc. Get them PLUS gunnies down at TSA regional HQ all out picketing and leafletting, with the media covering it...and NOW you've got something.

Annoying airline passengers ain't what's gonna do it.

Suggested sign:

"CHOOSE: commercial pilot with a 357 or military with a sidewinder?!?"

 

[Gordon Fink]

Jim, one of the things you want is media attention. If I head over to LAX with a handful of leaflets, do your really think that will make even the local evening news? Now, if a hundred of us show up …

But that’s where leadership is required. Jim March is a leader, and he has accomplished a lot for one man, but he is an exception. Even then, his Diebold stuff has barely made the news, and his CCW efforts are almost totally unknown outside the Internet RKBA community.

With regard to armed pilots, I brought up the President’s less-than-enthusiastic effort because he is the only one who can actually force the issue. Clearly, he doesn’t really want to, so no amount of leafleting, writing to Congress, or other whining is going to help. The people wanted armed pilots, the Congress passed another unnecessary law, and the President has done absolutely nothing to enforce either it or the Second Amendment.

The armed-pilots issue may be a microcosm of the whole RKBA problem, but it’s really just a tiny part of the picture itself. As I wrote in Jim March’s original thread, I’m not inclined to support the creation yet another armed elite anyway. I would much rather spend my money and effort on something that benefits all of us.

I’m one insignificant man, so I’ve joined pro-RKBA groups. I’m at their disposal for direct action when possible, but so far all they’ve asked for is money and the occasional useless letter to our elected “representatives.†This brings up another problem.

We are always on the defensive. When will we strike back? It’s high time for offense! Every year, numerous gun-control bills are introduced, but don’t we have any legislators on our side? Why aren’t we pushing legislation? Shall-issue CCW reform, repeal of semi-auto bans, promotion of gun-safety education …

Our chance to take the initiative is coming up. If the federal ban on semi-automatic rifles does expire in September, it will be an unprecedented moment in the history of gun control. We must capitalize on that and start to turn the tide, but we can’t do so as a bunch of disorganized individuals ranting and passing out flyers.

Let’s concentrate our efforts on the people who will actually listen to us, our local and national pro-RKBA organizations. I’ll even draft the first letter.

~G. Fink

 

[alan]

JimPeel wrote in response to my comment:



Minetta IS the problem. He is, pursuant to the legislation, allowed to create regulations. That is, of course, the problem with most legislation these days; the allowance for bureaucrats to make law under the guise of "regulation".

This has allowed Minetta to stall and stonewall the legislation.

Does anyone here really believe that Bush has nothing better to do than chase guys like Minetta and keep them on the straight and narrow?


Fair enough. Given that, why doesn't he (Bush) stand up and fire Minetta. I expect that he can do that.

As to bureaucrasts making law, via regulations, nothing new there, For instance, there was that infamous portion in GCA'68 that ran as follows, "And The Secretary or his delegate shall promulgate regulations ...", which Translated into English, gave some faceless, appointed bureaucrat, or someone even more faceless, for at least The Secretary had to be confirmed by The Senate, but exactly who was "his delegate", the power to make law via DECREE. Have the "computer warriors", the chairborne commandos ever tried to make a point of that with the rest of the pother numbnuts, the congress and senate critters?

 

[jimpeel]

All

The place to do it is outside of a TSA office building, targetting the middle managers and executives coming in and out!

I have tried to get something together to alert passengers to the TSA problem. It is they who will cause the TSA to get off their asses and enable the legislation.

Gathering outside of the TSA is not a viable alternative; because, for one, where are they? We all know where the nearest major airport is, however.

Well, the unionized airline employees are getting hammered by the fear of flying caused by lack of armed pilots. So to get a good-sized mob going, network with the unions - the machinists, pilots, flight crews, etc. Get them PLUS gunnies down at TSA regional HQ all out picketing and leafletting, with the media covering it...and NOW you've got something.

I have yet to call ALPA as I don't want to start bothering them about a function that may very well never come off. Hell, I am having a Hell of a time getting seven people together at one time.

Annoying airline passengers ain't what's gonna do it.

We would merely hand them a small piece of paper for their perusal. If they want to talk to us, fine. Otherwise we simply smile, shut up, and hand out the leaflets.

The front text of the leaflet is:

WHAT'S BETTER FOR YOUR SAFETY:
A FIREARM IN THE COCKPIT; OR AN F-16
OFF THE LEFT WING PREPARING TO
SHOOT YOU DOWN?

This text will appear above a picture of a fully armed F-16.

The back would say:

Did you know that Air Force pilots may be ordered to shoot
down your airliner if hijackers take control of it?

Congress ordered Norman Minetta, the head of the Transportation Safety Agency, to implement a program to arm pilots to protect you against terrorist hijacking. To date, Mr. Minetta has resisted those orders by imposing nearly impossible requirements upon your pilot to be armed.

Mr. Minetta's policy endangers you and every American airline passenger by assuring would-be hijackers that your pilot is defenseless. If the pilot can't stop the hijackers, then the Air Force may shoot down the airliner. You can help end this threat to your safety by calling or writing Norman Minetta to demand that he implement immediately the law passed by Congress. Demand that the TSA encourage qualified pilots to be trained and armed to protect passengers.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation Security Administration
Office of Civil Rights
Mail Stop: TSA-6
400 7th Street, Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20590
Attention: Norman Minetta
Phone: (866) 289-9673
Email: [email protected]

one of the things you want is media attention. If I head over to LAX with a handful of leaflets, do your really think that will make even the local evening news? Now, if a hundred of us show up …

If I can pull this off, the press will be alerted to the protest. I want to do this on the same day at 10-12 airports across the nation. Right now, I have seven people and can cover Denver Intl, SFX, Cheyenne, WY, and maybe LAX.

a bunch of disorganized individuals ranting and passing out flyers

If that was what I wanted, my first call would have been to the TRT. I don't want anything noisy. No signs, no banners, no camos, and definitely no TRT tee shirts. I'm trying to get something together that would involve people in upscale casual dress standing there smiling and handing leaflets to passengers as they enter the secure area. No disruption of lines. No uninvited conversation.

 

[jimpeel]

All

For those who have any trepidation about the government coming down on them for doing this, the law is on our side. If they interfere with us we can have them criminally and civily charged. We can sue for monetary damages as well.

Read PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (Leafletting on private property)

and

LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) (Leafletting at airports)

 

[alan]

Jim Peel:

I haven't a clue as to wether or not your idea, if put into operation, would have the desired effect. Having said that, I cannot see how it could make things worse than they already are, in my view, bad and likely to get worse. I seem also to note, with respect to those who criticize your proposal, that they aren't offering anything in it's stead, whether such offering be better or worse mattering not.

As to your postulated concern about some people featuring the wrath of "government", I rather suspect that that such fear is a serious overstatement of the situation. Much more likely a reaction is that leafleterrs would simply be ignored, after possibly having been "pushed" to one side. Re "the law being on our side", likely so, however who says that the average cop, security type or rent-a-cop goon was ever given ANY valid information as to "the law", in particular with respect to appellate court rulings. While some inconvenience to individuals might acrew, I seriously doubt that any serious damage would result, partly due to the possibility of very bad press that likely would follow, as well as money costs to abusers and their employers.

Getting back to the beginning, that is criticism of what you proposed, do those who knock your ideas have anything better to offer, in particular something that might work?

 

[El Rojo]

I would suspect the reason you might have a hard time getting THR members to hand out flyers for arming pilots in Nebraska vs. Jim March's call for PRK members to try and get a CCW can be easily explained.

1st, how many THR members are there in Nebraska? How many THR members are there in the PRK? Does anyone have any way of figuring that out? I would suspect that there are probably more PRK THR members than NE THR members.

2nd, How many THR members from Nebraska are pilots or fly frequently? Your efforts mainly affect people who fly a lot, their relatives, and/or pilots. In contrast, how many THR members from the PRK own a handgun and would like to have a CCW permit, but currently can't because of liberal law enforcement chiefs that don't want to issue? I suspect that right there is the reason you seem to lack support where we seem to have more. What we are talking about directly affects us on a daily basis, where as your issue is more limited to those who fly and a group of pilots.

True I support the arming of pilots. I think it is a great idea and would be a most certain deterrant for hijackers. I also support the deterrant of having responsible citizens be armed. I just happen to feel that attempting to get more average citizens armed vs. a select group of pilots would be more worth with my time. There are a lot of PRK subjects here that would rather fight for that as well. I think that is the simple reason you can't get much help as compared to Jim March.

 

[jimpeel]

Alan

however who says that the average cop, security type or rent-a-cop goon was ever given ANY valid information as to "the law", in particular with respect to appellate court rulings.

We would have on hand several copies of PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and LEE v. INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) with an attached Constructive Notice at each location. It takes but the mere handing of the document to the authorities for them to be considered "served". At that point they lose all "good faith" exemption to their subsequent actions involving us and are liable for those actions.

 

[jimpeel]

El Rojo

1st, how many THR members are there in Nebraska? How many THR members are there in the PRK? Does anyone have any way of figuring that out? I would suspect that there are probably more PRK THR members than NE THR members.

All suspicion aside, it is obvious even to the casual observer that by the sheer force of numbers there have to be more CA members than NE members. It is also inconsequential to this idea.

2nd, How many THR members from Nebraska are pilots or fly frequently? Your efforts mainly affect people who fly a lot, their relatives, and/or pilots.

Apparently, you missed the post wherein I explained that I wanted the protest to be at 10 - 12 major airports throughout the United States. I would love to have this come off at JFK, SFX, LAX, DIA, Logan, Lindberg, Dulles, Reagan, La Guardia, O'Hare, etc. So far, I can cover DIA and SFX.

True I support the arming of pilots. I think it is a great idea and would be a most certain deterrant for hijackers. I also support the deterrant of having responsible citizens be armed. I just happen to feel that attempting to get more average citizens armed vs. a select group of pilots would be more worth with my time. There are a lot of PRK subjects here that would rather fight for that as well. I think that is the simple reason you can't get much help as compared to Jim March.

So basically this comes down to me v them. You will sacrifice a victory on one front because the victory you want affects you. I'll take them both if I can.

If we could pull off what I propose, it would glean good press for us and show the public-at-large that we are mobilized. That we are willing to get of our dead asses and do something for someone besides ourselves. It would be even better if we could do this on several weekends but, Hell, I'm not able to get one weekend scheduled.

 

[alan]

JimPeel, and or anyone else:

In various posts, at the close, you have noted, amongst other observations, the following:

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey.

For whatever the following might be worth, while perhaps speculative, it seems to me that "Three thousand people died on Sept.11 because 8 pilots were not armed, as pilots formerly were".

If he were asked, I think that Mr. Luckey would agree, though I could be wrong.

Has The Congress (House and Senate) and or the present administration done anything much to address this problem? The answer to that seems to be, Not Much, unfortunately. Of course, I could be wrong there too.

I realize that the foregoing doesn't really bear on the issuing of carry permits in California, however it seems that it has been frequently mentioned in this discussion.

 

[jimpeel]

Alan

For whatever the following might be worth, while perhaps speculative, it seems to me that "Three thousand people died on Sept.11 because 8 pilots were not armed, as pilots formerly were".

While your version of Mr. Luckey's quote would be a wonderfully preferable alternative, we are constrained by the requirement that a quote contain the exact words of the author.

If the pilots had been armed, the result might more logically have concluded in the same manner that the attempted hijacking did in 1954. Spread THIS ARTICLE far and wide.

 

[alan]

JimPeel:

I get the impression, reading your response, that you feel I was "misquoting" Mr. Luckey. If an intelligent reader takes that impression away, then I guess that I'm guilty of sloppy writing or phrasing. If that be the case, my apologies. I thought that the meaning and intent of what I wrote was clear enough.

In any case, what I intended to say in the above, and what I've said a whole bunch of times, in both comment on sites and in correspondence with elected officals is the following. Had the pilots of the 4 hijacked airliners been armed, as airline pilots used to be, then the results obtained at days end might well have been markedly different. I still think that Mr. Luckey, if asked, would agree with this, though obviously this is a speculative conclusion.

Of course, those who would argue AGAINST the arming of pilots can and have taken an opposing tack, their position being no more or less speculative than is mine, all the hot air about "explosive decompression", and people being sucked out through bullet holes, or as it were, through windows, ala Goldfinder, notwithstanding.

I just read the article about Capt. Bonnell shooting a "hijacker" many years ago. Simple truth be told, Bonnell acted in SELF DEFENSE, not to mention in the defense of his cockpit crew and the passengers on that flight. He should have received a medal for his action. Seems to me, as memory still sort of serves, that I had somewhere read something about this incident, but not with the details your link furnished. As for the 1981 "regulations" mentioned, in as few words as possible, MORE BUREAUCRATIC BALONEY, the sort of thing that leads to the death of innocents.

Do you think that the faceless "regulation writers" are proud of themselves, and or perhaps have managed to sell themselves that old and convenient story about how they were acting "for some greater good", said greater good never quite being defined or explained??

 

[jimpeel]

Alan

I get the impression, reading your response, that you feel I was "misquoting" Mr. Luckey.

Not in the least. I was agreeing with you that the more desireable statement would have been yours as it tells the story more completely. Mr. Luckey, however did not say that -- to our detriment.

I thought that the meaning and intent of what I wrote was clear enough.

It was. Stop beating yourself up.

In any case, what I intended to say in the above, and what I've said a whole bunch of times, in both comment on sites and in correspondence with elected officals is the following. Had the pilots of the 4 hijacked airliners been armed, as airline pilots used to be, then the results obtained at days end might well have been markedly different. I still think that Mr. Luckey, if asked, would agree with this, though obviously this is a speculative conclusion.

I believe that you are correct. Mr. Luckey is a proponent of arming pilots. The Time Magazune article where he states the quote in my signature line is reproduced at http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg21008.html which is the archive site for the California Aviation Alliance.

Here is a copy of his statement before the COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION U.S. SENATE ON AVIATION SECURITY 7-25-02 It is a PDF file so you will need Adobe Reader to view it.

He was also on PBS' Newshour May 3, 2002 . The transcript and streaming video of the show are at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june02/debate_5-3.html On that show, he stated:

The reason I'm really here today is because you know on 9/11, eight pilots were unable to survive an assault attack by 19 terrorists on four aircraft. Had they the tools, the training, and the tactical knowledge to meet this challenge effectively, I think history would reveal a different outcome. We'd have the World Trade Centers and we wouldn't have an industry that's hemorrhaging profusely at this particular time.

Do you think that the faceless "regulation writers" are proud of themselves, and or perhaps have managed to sell themselves that old and convenient story about how they were acting "for some greater good", said greater good never quite being defined or explained??

I'm sure they sleep very well at night because they never see the evil in their deeds. They only see the "good" that their actions cause.

 

[El Rojo]

So basically this comes down to me v them. You will sacrifice a victory on one front because the victory you want affects you. I'll take them both if I can.

I am not sacrificing anything. There are tons of issues related to the second amendment. Do I spend every living second of my life fighting for all of those causes? Of course not. There is not enough time in the day and I have other responsibilities. So if I were to see a thread titled something about arming pilots, there is a good chance I am going to skip it. That issue is just not as important to me as other issues. Again, I think it is a great idea to arm pilots, but when it comes down to it, I don't fly and I don't live or work in a target worth flying a plane into. This might sound wrong, but I enjoy my rural environment because I know I have less of a chance of getting wacked by a plane. I know my odds of getting caught up in such action is lower and I am thankful for it. I don't want anything to happen like 911 again, but sometimes the terrorists just have their heads screwed on right. Just like they did on 911.

Since I skip most threads having to do with arming pilots, I had no idea what you were up to and that is why I had no idea you were trying to get this idea going. Again, I live in ruralsville. I live across the street from our municple airport, no commuter service. Next closest airport with commuter service is 45 miles away. LAX is two hours or more depending on traffic. This issue just is not my end all be all, so other than maybe right a letter or two, I am out.

Now I have a CCW so that issue in my state is obviously going to perk my attention. I like reading up on the AWB now and then. There are issues that are big enough for my interest to perk. Some aren't. That is just the way it is.

 

[jimpeel]

I'm reviving this thread for a reason

When I started the idea of leafletting airports in support of arming pilots, the first one here to jump on the idea with me was labgrade. There were, subsequent to that, another five people who thought this might "fly".

Now that labgrade has passed away http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79688 I find myself without my staunchest supporter.

Gunsmith, who lives in SF, was available to leaflet SFX. Labgrade and I were honing in on DIA, we also had a couple of other people who would cover a couple of other airports.

This all came down to about 4 airports -- far short of then ten to twelve I wanted.

Labgrade was game even though life was not treating him or his family very well http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=626 . He was wracked by the demons of depression and his posts as of late had become rambling as the meds did battle.

BUT HE WAS GAME!

I had all but put this idea on the cyber shelf to collect cyber dust when the news of his passing came like a punch in the solar plexus. So I thought I'd drag it off the cyber shelf one last time.

The question is: Is anyone else game?

The way to contact me is in this post http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=985986#post864145

 

[The_Antibubba]

Official conflict

Jim,

Truthfully, I'd volunteer to picket an airport or a TSA office, except for one small problem: I work for TSA. It would not look good.

What else have ya got?

 

[jimpeel]

The_Antibubba

That's about it. I'm short on ideas but long on guts. I wanna get in their faces and let the buying public know what Minetta is doing and how it affects their safety.

Sorry. Do they have an exclusionary clause that precludes you from petitioning your government for the redress of grievances?