Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Tsa

  1. #1
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136

    Tsa

    I know this isn't a firearms thing but I thought I'd bring some attention to this issue because it falls under the subject of constitutional rights.

    So, what do you think of the new TSA regulations? If you agree with them, why? Also, if you don't agree with them are you willing to take action? If so, what action?

    My last question, and this is really the most important one, why don't we just let everyone take guns onto the planes anyway? I haven't noticed anyone I've ever seen legally open or concealed carrying who I wouldn't be comfortable sitting next to on a plane if they and I were armed...

    So, thoughts, please.

  2. #2
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    ...(Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.)...

    http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...ots/index.html

  3. #3
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    [QUOTE=oldbanger;1407261]...(Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.)...

    Is this supposed to make a point? Because if it is, I don't see it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    clarkebar:

    Unfortunately, The Federal Government now has 'Carte-Blanch' Authority to Regulate Commerce, starting at Screening CheckPoints Maned by The Travel Security Administration under Federal Law, by Authority of wit. The Department of HomeLand Security.

    However, such Federal OverSight does not apply to or affect The non-Terminal, thus, 'non-Secure' Areas of such Airports.

    There was a Federal Bill Filed by a New Jersey Politician before The United States Congress to extend such Authority to encompass the entire Airport, however; such Bill did not go anywhere.

    The Bill, as under THOMAS Legisaltion Bill Tacker, a Federal Bill Tracking Mechanism, is: Federal Senate Bill 3366.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3366:

    The Bill cited above will NOT go anywhere, as Congress is in Lame-Duck Session, and The Democrats are on the verge of Losing Power. In Fact, it has not progressed into any other Committee other than The Committtee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

    This ALL was in Response to a Bill, Filed IRONICALLY, in my State, Georgia, which would have Authorized Firearms into non-TSA Areas of HartsField International Airport, beyond the Oversight of Federal Authority, under State Soviergnity, which is something that Lautenburg, and ALL the rest of His 'Co-erts', and Brady will NEVER understand!

    aadvark

    P.S.: I DISLIKE Lautenburg, and everything that HE stands for! Everything that He does, among others, is in Direct Contravention of The Second Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America. It is NO Surprise tha He also Sponsered the 'Lautenburg-Amendment' to Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 922(g)/(n)(8) AND 18 U.S.C. (g)/(n)(9)! Typical Anti-Gun Agenda, as USUAL..., for Him anyway. Hopefully, 2012 will bring a Republican-held Congress that WILL FIX His, and others Persons messes, when it comes to OUR Firearm-Rights.
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-23-2010 at 02:38 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    I'm in favor of almost anything as long as it makes the flying travel safer. The pat-downs and scans don't particularly bother me although I'd suggest the DHS/TSA increase their educational program to demonstrate how security protocols help lessen the danger to travelers.

    Implementing profiling and higher-level training for TSA officers also seem to be needed to maximize the safety of American travelers.

    Also, I agree that vetted passengers (another slippery slope) should be allowed to carry weapons on board although there remains the concern that terrorists could simply buy out the plane and put their own people on-board.

    It's a mess.
    Last edited by ecocks; 11-23-2010 at 07:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    [QUOTE=clarkebar; why don't we just let everyone take guns onto the planes anyway?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=clarkebar;1407384]
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    ...(Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board.)...

    Is this supposed to make a point? Because if it is, I don't see it.
    see it ?
    Last edited by oldbanger; 11-23-2010 at 07:22 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover,
    The ACTUAL point is here. If the AIRLINE had done it's job, followed it's own rules and procedures, this incident probably would not have occured. So the TSA/FAA/State/Feds/whoever made MORE laws...

    This is the SAME argument used by ANTI gun groups, "we need MORE laws" to curb gun violence!

    NO, we need to ENFORCE the laws we already have!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    86
    a couple pistol packing regular people could have changed the outcome of 911. people sound like sheep saying they are more than happy to give up freedom for safety. they really need to get off mamas tit and protect themselves. big brother doesn't have the peoples back anymore, the people have become the enemy. when did an armed law abiding US citizen become a threat to national security?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    I'm in favor of almost anything as long as it makes the flying travel safer.
    Safer than what?

    You're more likely to die while driving to the airport, than from any air crash. More people will die while driving instead of flying, than died on the 9/11 aircraft.

    Among air crashes, those caused by criminals and/or terrorists are a tiny minority.

    Do you know the last time a U.S. flight was brought down by a bomb? Hint: May 22, 1962

    How many 9/11 hijackers carried illegal weapons? Zero.

    How many planes were bombed on 9/11? Zero. (Planes were the weapons, not the target.)

    Current TSA procedures are not only fighting the last threat, they don't even understand what that threat was. TSA is bolting the basement door after the horses escaped the barn.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 11-24-2010 at 04:31 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    This whole issue does go along with Constitutional rights -- the Constitution was not designed to change with the times, it is a set of principles that define who we are as a nation and when those principles are eroded, regardless of what part of the Constitution we are talking about, we stop being the United States of America our Founding Fathers intended. The system is a mess -- and I fail to see how seeing an image of my naked body and "touching my junk" is going to make the travelling public safer. Kids, elderly, those with medical issues, moral objections, and those who have been violated by others -- many of us have heard the horror stories by now -- is this right? I have my own observations and suggestions, but who is willing to listen? The line between liberty and security has not been drawn, maybe now is the time to do so.

    The funny thing is -- tactics that we use as OCers in confronting antis and overbearing LEO's would work well if people decide to stand up.
    Last edited by acmariner99; 11-24-2010 at 12:37 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    We will see how things progress.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by clarkebar View Post
    So, what do you think of the new TSA regulations? If you agree with them, why? Also, if you don't agree with them are you willing to take action? If so, what action?
    What I think about the new regulations isn't exactly ladylike, so I'll just say that they stink worse than a hog farm in July. They're also unconstitutional, as are most of the actions of the TSA.

    As for what I'm doing about it? I have turned down a free-to-me plane ticket to visit relatives for the holidays, choosing instead to drive myself about 17 hours RT. I did write the airlines most likely to have benefited from the offer of a plane ticket, and told them that they had lost my business, and WHY. Haven't yet gotten around to writing any of my representatives, but I will.

    I should not be prohibited from free action because the government thinks I (or someone else) might possibly at some undefined future time break a law, no matter how bad the outcome of that action might be, ESPECIALLY when the government has no PC nor even RAS that I have any intent to commit said amorphous crime.

    Similarly, being required to show my naked body to a government agent, and/or endure a sexual assault can never be a prerequisite to using a service I bought with my private money from a private company.

    I'll go through a metal detector. I think that's minimally invasive, though ineffective.
    Before I'd let them assault me or put me in the porn scanner I'll walk through the metal detector in my bra & underwear.

    They can see that I don't have any weapons, but they won't touch me. (That's creepy, and bad for health since they don't change gloves & wash hands.) My objection is not so much to being seen naked (will hurt the viewer more than me) as to being forced by the government to expose myself.

    I've been raped before, and I can pretty much guarantee that my reaction to the forced assault by TSA agents will NOT be happy for either of us. Probably won't be a conscious reaction, at least after the first few seconds of "nonononononono!".

    I would be perfectly willing to ride on a plane with no screening, allowing all US citizens to carry whatever personal protection devices they chose.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  13. #13
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    I have worked in military and civilian security since 1974. In my view, the current TSA procedures are a sham and will never be effective. It is unconstitutional, invasive and just plain wrong.

    When they say they are just doing their jobs and following orders, I call BS. That's what German soldiers said after World War II. That still didn't make it right.

    I was in the Air Force for 20 years. Did I follow orders blindly? No, I demanded to know why I was being told to do something and my commanders learned to respect that. Sometimes I didn't like what I was being told to do, but at least I understood the reasoning. I don't see that happening here.

    Unfortunately, the TSA and our elected officials will not listen to us. They will, however, listen to the airlines if they start to suffer financially. Money talks. Make the airlines hurt and things will change pretty quickly.

    Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth....
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  14. #14
    Regular Member clarkebar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    136
    I'm happy to see so many responses! This is what I had hoped by posting something on the subject of TSA. I guess I should respond to oldbanger's example of why we need to have security on aircraft...

    Originally Posted by oldbanger:

    Incidentally, the requirement that crews undergo checkpoint screening was imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration after the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in 1987. A recently terminated flight attendant, David Burke, used his credentials, which the airline had failed to recover, to carry a concealed handgun onto Flight 1771 from Los Angeles to San Francisco. En route, he shot both pilots and nosed the airplane into the ground near Harmony, Calif., killing all 44 on board...

    That's not a point. If the pilots had been able to defend themselves the flight attendant may have been foiled in his plans. Even if he managed to kill the pilots there's a good possibility that an armed citizen on the plane, had there been one, could have killed the flight attendant and been talked down by the flight controllers. Oh, and despite popular belief, flight controllers are capable of doing this (just watch mythbusters!).
    Last edited by clarkebar; 11-26-2010 at 11:00 AM. Reason: It needed editing

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Seeing as that the TSA has failed to stop a single terrorist attack, and the "terrorist plots" that have been foiled (I'm not entirely sure that the "underwear bomber" was not an inside job; I mean, his dad told the US Embassy he was a wacko and he was on a no-fly list), have been foiled by passengers, I would say that passengers should be allowed to carry on whatever weapon is legal for them to possess in both their departure and arrival cities. Now that the cockpit door is secure, it should be up to the PRIVATE BUSINESSES to regulate PRIVATE SECURITY. If you want to pay to have incompetent fools in silly costumes wearing shiny government-issued costume jewelry grope you, fine...I'll be flying NoMolestAir.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Another thing to consider is that now that the cockpit door is closed, the pilot is the only threat to the plane itself and the people on the ground. People have snapped in other workplaces and attempted to harm colleagues, customers, and themselves. It happens. Not often, but it happens. I would say that we haven't seen it among pilots yet, because they are a more stable segment of the population to begin. But mark my words, it will happen one day. And what do you do when that happens? Pay a government pilot to sit in the cockpit with a pistol pointed at the commercial pilot's head, ready to ice him if he starts acting kooky? Give me a break.

    Life has risks. Traveling is one of those risks. While I would never let some crazy Muslim goons take away my rights through their scare tactics, the fact is that they are not. My own government is. That is the truly disturbing thing.

    Now TSA wants to expand its Gestapo regime to ferries, buses, trains, etc. Trains...really? It's kind of hard for a terrorist to hijack a train and crash it into a building. Modern trains can be stopped remotely. It's not about security, people; it's about control.

  17. #17
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    I think they suck it! (both the TSA and the new regulations) As far as taking action, I've already written letters, and I will not fly until this BS is over.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The most recent round of TSA "security regulations" have nothing to do with security, or even the appearance of security.

    They are "dog training" to get the American people used to this sort of abusive, humiliating, dehumanizing treatment as a matter of daily life.

    This is nothing more than Class Warfare being waged from the "top", on everyone below. They are TRYING to back us into a corner, trying to provoke a violent response. By continuously escalating the levels of degredation, humiliation, and dehumanization to which we are subjected, they are hoping that we'll get fed up and do something stupid, so they can then have the excuse to simply shut down travel and communications, and round up the firearms...

    You'll notice that NONE of these silly "security theater" measures are being applied to private aviation. That's because the uber-rich bastards who own their own jets honestly believe in their hearts that they are above the law--and MOST of them are the VERY people whoare making these laws for the rest of us, or profiting from them...

    Do you REALLY think that Chertoff has to get his nuts squeezed to fly?

    When there are two sets of laws, it creates two classes of people, and Liberty is no longer possible. Then you have a plutocratic oligarchy...

    How long before they start digging trenches with machine gun nests behind the airports, for lining people up who refuse to be irradiated or sexually assaulted?

    Ihre Papiere Bitte?
    Last edited by Dreamer; 11-30-2010 at 03:25 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  19. #19
    mattwestm
    Guest
    I hear arguments all the time from people "think of the 9/11 victims, they would want this type of security." In my opinion, the terrorists have already won. I am "terrorized" by the TSA when I try to fly somewhere. Basically, I won't be flying anywhere for a very long time. Oh, I was wondering... Do they backscan/gate rape everyone or only "random selected"?

    I just wish people would take a stand against something they know is wrong. It works all the time in France. When I was living there, the metro in Paris was shut down because the workers refused to work. The city started to suffer, so they gave in to workers. Another time, the workers who refill the ATMs went on strike so every ATM ran empty. Those workers got what they wanted. If we all refused to fly or showed up to the airport in underwear, maybe the policy would change. I know Germans wouldn't put up with this crap either. Some of them remember what being controlled is like and it isn't fun!

    One other part of this nonsense is the fact that the pilots are scanned. THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THE PLANE, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY HAVE WEAPONS OR NOT. In reality, airport security is worthless and is just for show. If someone does take control of the plane, the passengers know they must overtake the terrorists because they will die either from being shot down by the military or from the plane crashing. What do they have to lose by at least trying to disarm the terrorists.

    Israel discriminates against people and it has worked for them. If you are wearing a turban and have a long beard, you will probably be screened. If you are 5 years old holding a lollipop, you will be fine.

    The rich people who own jets probably don't even go in the airport, they go straight to their plane on the runway.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    I am flying in Feb from CA to OK and luckily neither have the scanners so while I wont be forced to take nude photos for Joe Plumber I may be forced to get felt up by him.

    As it stand I believe everyone who travels through an airport has to go through the screeners now, but if you opt out you get groped.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    In every single instance, in the entire know history of mankind, when a government requires "citizens" to let "authorities" look at their naked bodies as a condition for travel, such actions are a precursor to genocide.

    Rome. The Ottoman Empire. Native American "relocations". Germany. USSR. Cambodia. Somalia. Kosovo. Israel/Palestine. Rwanda. Sudan. Tibet.

    Every time.

    In every instance.

    Without exception.

    Never forget this...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Constitutionality has no place is a discussion of what private airlines require before flight. TSA simply provides a service to those airlines and you certainly don't have to buy a ticket or fly.

    I fly every week (waiting to board #49 this year as I type.). I have only been scanned 1 time this year and never before. The new measures are better than previous methods for detecting hidden items. They are not perfect, but largely not invasive and harmless. People seem to want to be indignant without knowing anything about what is being implemented.

    As to carrying on planes, it is not necessary, and probably creates unneeded hassles. 9-11 can't happen again since we all recognize the danger and won't mind getting hurt defending our plane from becoming a missile. But I would love to be able to just walk on with mine when I'm just taking a day trip and no bags.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wilder, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    46
    I personally will not subject myself or my family to these intrusive measures, I have a very comfortable Cadillac that we will drive where ever we need to go.




    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Constitutionality has no place is a discussion of what private airlines require before flight. TSA simply provides a service to those airlines and you certainly don't have to buy a ticket or fly.
    I do believe that the TSA or something akin to it is required of the airline industry by the Federal Government, I have a feeling that they (Airline's) would be more than happy to get rid of the headache that is the TSA.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    nonameisgood: The federal government requires the airlines to use the TSA (or a private organization performing exactly the same searches) on all commercial airline passengers.

    You may think it is not invasive, but I don't care what you think. This is my body that they are going to image naked or grope (including my genitals). It matters what I think about what they may do to my body.

    This IS a constitutional issue. The government is subjecting us to searches without warrant or probable cause in order to do something that has become routine in our country. Would you submit to such a search to go to Wal-Mart? No.

    And don't try to tell me that such a search is necessary for security on an airplane, but not in Wal-Mart. Security has nothing to do with the governments right to perform a search. The courts have been clear: a warrant or probable cause is required for such an invasive search. Security does not justify the invasiveness of these searches.

    We have a Constitution precisely because what the government is allowed to do should not be determined by what folks don't care if they do or, even worse, what the majority wants it to do. Our Constitution makes it clear what the feds may and may not do. It's about time we started caring about it overstepping its bounds while there is still a chance of keeping it in check.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Nice post, eye95. I agree 100%

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •