What's new
By:

the real terroist the: TSA

I feel the same way about this as I do the AZ immigration law. Who cares if it inconveniences some people? If it stops just ONE SINGLE dumbass from taking a bomb on a plane and killing hundreds of people, then it really is worth it. If you're not breaking any laws, then who gives a flying ****?
 
TroutBum said:
I feel the same way about this as I do the AZ immigration law. Who cares if it inconveniences some people? If it stops just ONE SINGLE dumbass from taking a bomb on a plane and killing hundreds of people, then it really is worth it. If you're not breaking any laws, then who gives a flying ****?
Click to expand...

I think some people are against it on the basis of personal freedom. Meaning, as a US citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained. Right?

I mean, what did your boy Franklin say: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

What else are you willing to give up Dave? At what point do you, personally, say they've gone too far?
 
VINYLONE said:
I think some people are against it on the basis of personal freedom. Meaning, as a US citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained. Right?

I mean, what did your boy Franklin say: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

What else are you willing to give up Dave? At what point do you, personally, say they've gone too far?
Click to expand...

I'm all for freedom. Hell, I'm a freedom fanatic. Anyway, flying on a comercial airliner requires an agreement between the passenger and the carrier. Part of that agreement is compliance with safety checks. If you don't want to comply with the safety procesedures then fly your own damn airplane or find another means of transportation. You do not have a right to board a comercial aircraft on your own terms. It is not your aircraft and there will be hundreds of other people aboard that plane. This is not a freedom issue, or a privacy issue.

What would be a violation of freedom would be to force comercial ailines to allow people to board their planes without allowing the airline to make sure that those people did not pose a threat to that aircraft, their other customers and their employees. Not to mention the liability they would face if by not taking reasonsble precautions their aircraft was used as a manned missile to take out, I don't know, a large building in the middle of a large city.
 
Interesting perspective. Is there an underlying concept of freedom that maybe you're not touching on? Or are you, personally, will to submit to whatever is asked of you?
 
Gameface said:
I don't have any plans to fly anytime soon, but a x-ray or pat down wouldn't stop me or concern me all too much. In other words, you can go ahead and touch my junk if you want to.
Click to expand...

And you are fine some 50 year old dude touching your daughter's private parts, right?
 
dodo said:
And you are fine some 50 year old dude touching your daughter's private parts, right?
Click to expand...

If she's not doing anything illegal, of course not. Hell, Im sure he would allow me to touch his daugthers privates if I was doing it in the name of security.
 
VINYLONE said:
I think some people are against it on the basis of personal freedom. Meaning, as a US citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained. Right?
Click to expand...

Your right to move about the country isn't being impeded.

I mean, what did your boy Franklin say: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...

Please explain what essential liberty is being forfeited. Convenience?
 
VINYLONE said:
Interesting perspective. Is there an underlying concept of freedom that maybe you're not touching on? Or are you, personally, will to submit to whatever is asked of you?
Click to expand...

No, if I felt that the procedures were over the top I would find a different form of transportation. An x-ray or pat down is not a big deal to me. I have performed pat downs on fellow members of the Navy as well as stinky truck drivers driving trucks that our ship dumped it's sewage into. Pat downs can be somewhat uncomfortable, but they are done in such a way as that you are not fondling the person's junk, at the most you are brushing against it with the back of your hand.
 
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin
 
Bronco70 said:
Your right to move about the country isn't being impeded.



Please explain what essential liberty is being forfeited. Convenience?
Click to expand...

I think Jason Chaffeztites are thinking that the freedom of privacy... And of not being groped are being forfeited.
 
The Thriller said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

You have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that a private newspaper is required to print whatever you want to say. Just as you are free to move about the country, but an airline doesn't have to allow you to board their plane if you do not comply with their security procedures. What are people not understanding about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top