posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:07 PM
"Nineteen thugs with boxcutters hijacked four aircraft. They were able to do so
because government didn't trust the law-abiding citizens on those planes to be armed for their
own protection. It's been proven, time and time again, that respecting Americans' right to keep
and bear arms reduces violent crime. That's just as true in the passenger cabin of a 747 as it
is on the street, in your home or in your car."
Guns? On airplanes? Yes, says Badnarik. "Let's not be unclear. Let's not pussyfoot around the
subject. Thousands of Americans died. They died because their government said 'we don't trust
you to defend yourselves.' A gun in the hand of a law-abiding American poses no danger to anyone
except a violent criminal. Frangible ammunition that won't puncture an aircraft hull is
available. A terrorist will find a way to get a weapon on board. Why should government require
the law-abiding to be victims to those who respect no law? More metal detectors, more searches,
more guards are just Band-Aids[TM] that cover up the wound without healing it. Ultimately, we
have to acknowledge that a diffuse threat requires a diffuse defense."
Of course, Badnarik continues, the US would have fewer concerns with terrorism in the first
place if it looked to its own defense and its own interest instead of becoming embroiled in
Not a shy man, this Michael Badnarik fellow. He's just attacked the presumed pillars of American
airline security, international policy and military strategy.
But could he be right?
Reactions are mixed, he admits.
On guns and airplanes: "Some people feel, against all the evidence, that firearms restrictions
are necessary. They're trading real security for a false sense of safety, and I've not found a
way to convince them. But you'd be surprised at how many people tilt their heads, think for a
minute, and say 'you know, you're right. I never thought of it that way before.'"
Foreign policy and the war issue are even more divisive. "America has a century-long tradition
that to support the troops, one must support whatever war the nation's leaders send those troops
to fight. I've been called everything from a traitor to a pacifist. I'm neither." He pauses,
looking reflectively into the distance. "I'm a proud American. I respect the sacrifices that
America's warriors have made in our defense. And it appalls me to see that dedication, that
willingness to fight for one's country, misused."
Still, he says, most of those with whom he speaks agree. "My experience matches the polls. The
majority of Americans think the war in Iraq is a tragic mistake. They're looking for a way out
of that mistake. And neither of my 'major party' opponents are offering them one."
Badnarik favors a 90-day phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, beginning on the day of his
inauguration. And while he admits that reaching that day is a long shot, he doesn't think that
his policy proposals are.
"The American people ultimately get what they want. I may not be the man they pick to give them
that, but ultimately they'll make their desires known. I'm just the messenger."
---------I for one agree with this-------------Any thoughts on this matter?
I got it in my email so I can't post a link...