Todays World

Discussion in 'Taking a Break From Flooring' started by Daris Mulkin, Nov 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd Administwative Asst. Charter Member I Support TFP Senior Member


    Sorry Kman but I don't believe TSA could catch flies if they coated their hands with honey!! As for finding IED's, if they were out of a job, there would be no TSA. Read the whole article that I snipped this from.

    TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security - CNN
    "While test results are classified and rarely leak out, those that have been disclosed typically don't inspire confidence. In tests conducted in 2006 and disclosed to USA Today last year, investigators successfully smuggled 75 percent of fake bombs through checkpoints at Los Angeles International Airport, 60 percent through Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and 20 percent at San Francisco International Airport."

    Does violating the 4th Amendment in the name of security please you?
     
  2. twomly

    twomly Pro Member

    Theres no choice here you go through it or you don't board simple.

    Twomly
     
  3. Kman

    Kman Tile Expert I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    I have no illusions about what they catch and what they don't catch. I know there have been quite a few things slipped past them. One of our dispatchers went through with a fake bomb. That's part of the testing procedure, to see if they're going to catch what they're supposed to catch. If they don't, they're not doing their job. I have no problem with them potentially losing their job over something like that. Peoples' lives are at stake.

    I hold all the amendments near and dear, but let's face it, they're worthless at 30,000 feet when someone triggers a homemade bomb.

    In this day and age, it's a trade-off. When there's a serious problem afoot, people have to make sacrifices to ensure the safety of everyone. I don't like it either, but I also don't like the idea of washing up on the shore of the Atlantic ocean after my plane was blown to smithereens.

    The same thing came about years ago when it was realized that a sizable number of people were being killed by drunk drivers. That revelation urged the courts to allow the police, under certain circumstances, to order a person from their vehicle and require them to submit to a battery of field sobriety tests to make sure the driver wasn't going to kill himself or some innocent person on the highway. Do I want to have to stand on the side of the road and prove that I'm not intoxicated? Of course not. Am I willing to make that sacrifice so that the highways are a little safer for everyone on the road. Sure.

    I know the saying about "those who are willing to sacrifice their rights in exchange for safety deserve neither" or something to that effect, but that doesn't mean diddly if you're dead.

    We might all disagree on this subject, but in my opinion, it's a small price to pay. Bottom line, if you don't like the way the safety checks are run, you don't have to fly. I don't remember anything in the bill of rights about the right to fly, or the right to drive either, for that matter.
     
  4. twomly

    twomly Pro Member

    Bang on Kman i like that reply, you don't wanna get patted down or go through the x-ray then don't fly plain and simple.
    I find the sobriety test quite bizarre our bizzies don't do that here you get breathalyzed if you're over the limit that's it you get arrested an taken in even if you're only over by 1 milligram that's it no leeway. I have no problem with any of the above I've been breathalyzed and was clean every time, its done at random here especially this close to Christmas the bizzies are out in force doing spot checks.

    Twomly
     
  5. Kman

    Kman Tile Expert I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    Bizzies?

    Need an English to English translation for that one. I'm sure I know what you're referring to, just never heard that term before. What's the story behind it?
     
  6. Nick Arrera

    Nick Arrera Resting In Peace

    But it is ok for them to whack you for drinks on the flight ?
     
  7. twomly

    twomly Pro Member

    Ok Kman English to English for you i was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice it you were damn quick buddy top marks.
    Just so you everyone knows these are the following nick names for the Police we have here some of which i'm not going to post cause they are very rude, Bizzies, Bobbys, Peelers, Bow Street Runners the first police force ever, Boys in Blue, Constable, Cozzes, Crusher comes from the Royal Navy, Ducks & Cheese, The Filth, The Gaver or Gavvers, Heavy or Heavies, Hobby-Bobby used for the special constables who are part timers, Jam Sandwich used for the cars cause they used to be white with a red stipe down the middle, Johnny Hopper short for copper, Mr Plod or PC Plod, Nickers, Old Bill, Rashers, Rozzers, Sweeny used for the flying squad.
    The story behind the Bizzies is it comes from Liverpool its their slang for the Police invented cause they were always to Busy to help.
    Just a few hope this helps should i drop any of them into a post again sorry for going off topic if anyone wants an explanation of the others please feel free to ask as we did invent the Police sorry.

    Twomly
     
  8. Sean Moore

    Sean Moore Pro Member

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

    If I'm not allowed to walk, bicycle or have a horse on the interstate an argument can be made that drivers licenses are unconstitutional.
     
  9. Barry Carlton

    Barry Carlton I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    Not if you can get there from w/o using the interstate.
     
  10. Sean Moore

    Sean Moore Pro Member

    Well, I don't agree with the argument but it can be made. Pretty tough to defend and I've never seen anyone win a debate from that position.
     
  11. Kman

    Kman Tile Expert I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    "The free Citizens of each State shall be intitled to all Privileges and Immunities of free Citizens in the sevl States"


    Privileges and Immunities are referred to here, not rights. Different animals.

    And a simple argument is not the law of the land until the courts say so.
     
  12. Sean Moore

    Sean Moore Pro Member

    Except, no:

    United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745
     
  13. Jim McClain

    Jim McClain Owner/Founder Administrator

    Is this conversation going someplace it shouldn't? Just wonderin'.
     
  14. Sean Moore

    Sean Moore Pro Member

    Just not one to tolerate authoritarian misinformation, especially about constitutional law. We do have a right to move about the U.S.A. as established by case law and here in the U.S.A. we do that in airplanes and automobiles.

    I'm done, not another peep.
     
  15. Kman

    Kman Tile Expert I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    Jim, do you consider this a political discussion?
     
  16. Jim McClain

    Jim McClain Owner/Founder Administrator

    Not yet, but I do see it getting there - or maybe it's just the petty nuances.
     
  17. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd Administwative Asst. Charter Member I Support TFP Senior Member

    And therein lies the biggest concern with the TSA. They promulgate rules and regulations, but do NOT publish them or inform the general public. Yet they have the power to enforce them with civil penalties, of up to $11,000. When asked of the rules and regulations they say "sorry SSI", in fact they have even refused to share some of that with the Congress. Congress backed down and let them walk away.

    So NO court has ruled on the rules (laws) they have made because no one knows them (except TSA). Seems to me that is subverting the Constitution, which provides for open discussion and dialog.

    Kman, as an LEO you have certain SOP the you must follow, if I wanted to find out about it, it is public knowledge and would be fairly easy to obtain. I am sure that at times it is annoying to follow SOP, but it makes you accountable to the citizens of Ala., correct. Yet when trying to find out SOP of the TSA, they hide behind "SSI".

    Make the policy open, apply it to everyone, allow for judicial review and everyone would be much happier! Just my dumb opinion.

    And no I don't think this is political, no one has blamed this on any one party. More a discussion of Constitutional law, as applied to "we the people".
     
  18. Mike Sahli

    Mike Sahli Pro Member

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse as far as being prosecuted for breaking the law, if there is no way to know what law or rule you are breaking how do you educate your self so you know you are compliant ?
     
  19. Kman

    Kman Tile Expert I Support TFP Senior Member Published

    I know that different people have different ideas. Some don't like the idea of another person's hands on them. I'll admit it would make me a bit uncomfortable as well. But again, if I happened to be on a plane that was hijacked, I would be very sorry that everyone that was on the plane wasn't thoroughly searched.

    I wish it hadn't come to this point where good citizens can't board a plane without being searched. Our way of life has been changed forever due to the fallout of 9/11. We won't ever be able to go about our lives as carefree as we did before that date.

    While most people are upset by these regulations, nobody seems to come up with a plausible solution. Who do you search? Just foreigners, or people that look or talk like foreigners? Just people with turbans? How about people that wear sandals, or people with a foreign-sounding name? We must screen everybody, or nobody.

    Maybe we just don't search anybody because we say that the constitution allows every person to travel freely, no exceptions. If we started that today, how long do you think it would take for another 9/11 to happen?

    How do you combat people who just want you dead? How do you fight an enemy who is perfectly willing to die as long as he takes out more of us?

    I'm not trying to use a scare tactic of any sort, I'm just trying to be realistic because many people find the slightest intrusion to be so objectionable that they're willing to risk the lives of others.

    If someone has the answer to those questions, I'd love to hear it.


    No, just the citizens of Arkansas. :D
     
  20. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd Administwative Asst. Charter Member I Support TFP Senior Member

    Walk thru metal detectors, xray luggage, done!
    No shoes off carnival, no liquid rules, etc.
    A balanced risk assesment, take precautions, provide a measure of security. Then if you are not comfortable with the level of security, drive, don't fly.
    Instead we have become a people who are wimps, scared of our own shadow.

    But that is exactly what the fear mongering has done, it scares the folks who only fly once a year or once every five years into saying, "Anything to be safe".

    Just because there are 47,000 traffic deaths a year should we say that the speed limit is 10 miles per hour? Because there are 500 deaths and 10,000 injuried by guns each year, should we say that no one can own a gun?

    With those examples, we allow the govt to set laws and regulations. We publicize and enforce those laws and regulations in a uniform manner. If those charged with enforcing them cross the line they are held accountable. ALL of those points are NOT true of the TSA, they hide behind SSI refusing to publish regulations, them enforce what they want, how they want. When caught doing things not allowed they quote privacy laws and refuse to be hold their employees accountable.

    How far do we go with allowing the govt to tell us how to keep safe?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.