Airport Screening Abuse Growing

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

vvvvvvv

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
12,284
Reaction score
65
Location
Nowhere
One would have to wonder how 9/11 would have turned out if each flight had a couple of armed capable citizens on board.Maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

...waiting for the village idiot to come along about massive depressurization causing the plane to plummet to its doom and everyone to die
 

Super Dave

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
3,905
Reaction score
16
Location
OKC
Great. So I assume you'll have no problem with being searched every time you get in and out of your car--after all, people have been using cars for crimes for a long time.

What do you have to hide? And it's a choice--you can always walk.

Nice point, Dave (great name, BTW), but since they don't, it's not really comparable. This isn't "what if they do?" It is "they do." What if monkeys suddenly flew out of my butt? Isn't currently happening, and more than likely (hopefully) won't ever.

Your turn.


.
 

1shot(bob)

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
"video cameras in use"
"premises under video observation"
etc.

Taking a job that requires you to keep some information confidential concedes your right to free speech.

Heck any time you agree to a terms of service you are probably conceding certain rights to the company you are dealing with. "(Company name) retains all ownership of copyright for any entries to our contest"


your right use privacy does not trump their right to security if you want to use whatever service they are providing.

In none of those cases do I surrender my rights.
I have no expectation of privacy at Walmart, Target or anywhere that has security cameras. I do have a right to not be searched by them.
Anytime I sign and NDA it is my choice to do so. Again, it's not the government doing it so it's not a violation.

Safety, or freedom. You choose
 

vvvvvvv

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
12,284
Reaction score
65
Location
Nowhere
I think there is a different argument to be had about whether the government should be providing security for what amount to private business.

That said, flying is still a private venture for all intensive purposes.

There are lots of parts of this argument that cut both ways for me. The government highly regulates the airline industry. I mean how many other businesses can say that 'federal law requires compliance with all crew member instructions'? But the government isn't requiring that i use the airline's services, so the government isn't forcing me into any situation where i have to give up my right to privacy. If i need to fly then that is a choice i make.

big pet peeve of mine: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

That said...

Do you believe it would be right for the government to screen restaurant patrons after a series of suicide bombings at popular restaurants?
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
2,105
Location
Oxford, MS
:rolleyes2 You really don't get it,do you? At what point do we say enough?? The terrorists have soundly defeated us.They have forced us to spend billions of dollars in the name of "security",forced us to completely change our way of life.One would have to wonder how 9/11 would have turned out if each flight had a couple of armed capable citizens on board.Maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

we must be in the same boat then since you don't seem to get it, either. An armed citizen wont do squat against a bomb (and bombs have gotten through metal detectors and x-rays). Yes, armed citizens would have made a difference on 9/11, but not against the shoe bomber or underwear bomber (which both could have brought down the planes had things worked).

The point where i say enough is enough is when the government wants to install them in courthouses or other places i might be legally compelled to visit. As of right now, though, it hasn't done that. If i don't want to be scanned then i wont fly.
 

RidgeHunter

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
723
Location
OK
[Broken External Image]

"Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you."


Reading this entire thread (why God, why???) I have to wonder if some people even read what they type.

What? Do you think I'm talking about you? If you have nothing to hide, why do you think I'm addressing you?

big pet peeve of mine: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

Lawl. Fingernails on a chalkboard.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
2,105
Location
Oxford, MS
big pet peeve of mine: FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

That said...

Do you believe it would be right for the government to screen restaurant patrons after a series of suicide bombings at popular restaurants?

Sorry about that, a slip i will correct.

I don't think the government's interest is so much to prevent bad things from happening at the restaurant, but if it tried to put them in place there then i would go somewhere else. As i've said all along, it's a choice to use that service.

I think airlines are a bit different since airplanes have been used as weapons to kill large numbers of people and are easily moved from place to place. Unless it's a taco truck, i don't see the government doing that at a restaurant.
 

dak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
401
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
[Broken External Image]

"Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you."


Reading this entire thread (why God, why???) I have to wonder if some people even read what they type.

What? Do you think I'm talking about you? If you have nothing to hide, why do you think I'm addressing you?



Lawl. Fingernails on a chalkboard.

it's festivus, we're airing our grievances :woohoo1:

and I agree with redmax, the terrorists won in our country the second Bush signed the patriot act into law and the TSA was established.
 

rlongnt

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
3,587
Location
Edmond
I have no problem going through the metal detectors or being wanded. I do have a problem with the just announced last month “Enhanced Pat Down” procedures.

The stupid body scanners aren’t there to protect us from anything. The only conspiracy here is one that is as old as the hills. It is greed. This is about selling us billions of dollars worth of hardware we neither want or need. Seriously folks, TSA, Homeland Security and everyone else already know that if you want to get a fork, knife or spoon on a damn plane you simply order a steak from TGI Fridays in the concourse which is PAST security. Of course the whole no knives or fingernail clippers thing is stupid anyway. I would guess that if 10 men armed with steak knives tried to hijack anything they would just get the crap beat out of them these days.

If a stranger came up to my wife or child and did the same thing as TSA with their new “Enhanced Pat Down” procedures they would be arrested for sexual assault. “After they got out of the hospital”.

If in the name of some false sense of security we let “ANYONE” grope our private areas we as a society have some serious reflecting to do.

I guess at the end of the day my thoughts are simply this. If we will let someone fondle our wife’s breasts or our children’s privates, what will we not accept?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom