Is the TSA becoming the SS?

[rambone]

I really can't understand what the fuss is about. It boils down to how much is your safety and your families safety worth? If me getting a pat down saves my family from a terrorist attack than it's worth it. While deployed I was the guy giving the pat downs all day every day to all those entering the Base. You think it was fun for me or fun for the TSA folks? But it was neccessary for the safety of those on Base. If people don't want the scan or the pat down, don't fly. Simple to me.

This is how mental conditioning works. You worked on a military base, where the constitution seemingly does not apply and residents have no rights. You were told it was for your safety. You got used to the program of warrantless searches.

Now when the Feds are treating the streets of America like a military base (or prison), you feel compassion for the oppressors.

America is not one giant military base. We have rights. Weapons are not the problem. Lack of weapons is the problem. Gun free zones do not keep us safe. Keeping everyone disarmed with those invasive searches at Fort Hood didn't do much for their safety.

You have to ask yourself if we are out there fighting for "safety" or for "freedom." Our forefathers would have answered "FREEDOM." And you can't protect freedom by taking it from people.

You don't want to hear about my run-in with customs in Dubai... I will take a scan or pat down without complaining!

I bet they don't have a constitution in Dubai.

 

[thompal]

I really can't understand what the fuss is about. It boils down to how much is your safety and your families safety worth? If me getting a pat down saves my family from a terrorist attack than it's worth it. While deployed I was the guy giving the pat downs all day every day to all those entering the Base. You think it was fun for me or fun for the TSA folks? But it was neccessary for the safety of those on Base. If people don't want the scan or the pat down, don't fly. Simple to me.

So, in all that time, how many bombs did you prevent from entering the base?

 

[doug1980]

So, in all that time, how many bombs did you prevent from entering the base?

The real question is how many people were detered and never tried to bring in a bomb.

 

[thompal]

The real question is how many people were detered and never tried to bring in a bomb.

No, actually, the real question is "how many people did you personally prevent from bringing a bomb onto the base?"

Was there a time where everyone was NOT patted down as a condition to entry? And, if so, how many bombs were brought on base because of a lack of patdowns?

 

[doug1980]

That's about the dumbest thing I ever heard. So are you saying we should have waited until Americans died, then started the searches? But giving your arguement a chance I'll say this... If what you are saying is we should have waited until there was an actual attack or threat before we subjected people to a search. Isn't that what the TSA is doing? There were people bringing bombs on planes which is why they are now doing these searches. They aren't doing these searches to infringe on your rights, they are doing all they can to save lives. It sucks that it's neccessary these days but it is. But hey if you want to take your chances then so be it. Guess we should stop protecting our borders too. And while we are at it who needs any security at all anywhere. We'll just let everyone do as they please all the time so no one gets there feelings hurt.

 

[shibumiseeker]

That's about the dumbest thing I ever heard. So are you saying we should have waited until Americans died, then started the searches? But giving your arguement a chance I'll say this... If what you are saying is we should have waited until there was an actual attack or threat before we subjected people to a search. Isn't that what the TSA is doing? There were people bringing bombs on planes which is why they are now doing these searches. They aren't doing these searches to infringe on your rights, they are doing all they can to save lives. It sucks that it's neccessary these days but it is. But hey if you want to take your chances then so be it. Guess we should stop protecting our borders too. And while we are at it who needs any security at all anywhere. We'll just let everyone do as they please all the time so no one gets there feelings hurt.

And that, sir, is what we call a fatuous argument. Also known as reductio ad absurdum.

There can be security measures that do not infringe on 4th amendment rights and will stop 99% of threats. Eliminating the 4th amendment because it is inconvenient to be able to up that to 99.1% of the threats is a fools game and a waste of time and resources. What you did on a military base is light years away from living as a free civilian. When you are in a military base you are in a de facto police state which you signed up for. At least a few of us citizens would rather have an extra measure of risk, rather than live in a police state.

Terrorism works even better now in an era of instant news 24hours a day because it seems like a much more immediate threat. Yet in the US we've spent many trillions of dollars of our productivity now fighting something that has killed very few civilians annually compared to:

Heart disease: 616,067
Cancer: 562,875
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Diabetes: 71,382
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney issues): 46,448
Septicemia: 34,828
(source:CDC)

Yet we have spent all of that money to "fight" terrorism when the worst attack we've ever had killed 3000 people, and other than that spike, the annual death rate is virtually zero. If we spent 10% of the money we're now spending fighting terrorism and put it towards reducing the above deaths we'd save hundreds of thousands of people a year, and we could do it without infringing on their rights.

Unfortunately, it's not about keeping people safe, it's about controlling people, and people like you are perfectly happy with it.

 

[indykid]

I am surprised that with the attempted car bomb in New York City, and knowing that in the middle east the car bomb is pretty much a weapon of choice, how soon is it that to get into Manhattan you are going to have to drive through checkpoints on the bridges and terminals?

How soon before you have checkpoints in the streets of Indianapolis, or Daytona on race days, or major sporting events like the Super Bowl?

All you need is one idiot to try something like a car bomb during a major sporting event and it will be ok to allow car checkpoints? Street closings? Scanners at all sporting events? Imagine no coolers allowed within 1000 yards of the Indy track?

At what point do you give up all your freedom for safety? Do we have to have a national ID so that we can safely get around?

If it would make us safe, would those of you who think giving up your rights for safety allow the government to implant an ID chip in you so that you can go through these checkpoints unmolested?

I am sorry, this American has given up enough freedom! Vigilance on the part of everyone will stop most attacks on us, but there is no way to be 100% safe. Just look at the streets of the middle east. They know that the enemy puts bombs in cars, yet car bombs are constantly going off.

Sorry, no Xray, no touch me. Metal detectors and even sniffers are fine, Xray my bags, not me!

 

[rambone]

Let people carry guns on planes. Gun-free zones are easy targets.

Doug, I was hoping you would respond to my last comment. Disarming everybody at Fort Hood actually helped 43 people get shot. "Disarmed safety" is an oxymoron.

 

[doug1980]

And that, sir, is what we call a fatuous argument. Also known as reductio ad absurdum.

There can be security measures that do not infringe on 4th amendment rights and will stop 99% of threats. Eliminating the 4th amendment because it is inconvenient to be able to up that to 99.1% of the threats is a fools game and a waste of time and resources. What you did on a military base is light years away from living as a free civilian. When you are in a military base you are in a de facto police state which you signed up for. At least a few of us citizens would rather have an extra measure of risk, rather than live in a police state.

Terrorism works even better now in an era of instant news 24hours a day because it seems like a much more immediate threat. Yet in the US we've spent many trillions of dollars of our productivity now fighting something that has killed very few civilians annually compared to:

Heart disease: 616,067
Cancer: 562,875
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Diabetes: 71,382
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis (kidney issues): 46,448
Septicemia: 34,828
(source:CDC)

Yet we have spent all of that money to "fight" terrorism when the worst attack we've ever had killed 3000 people, and other than that spike, the annual death rate is virtually zero. If we spent 10% of the money we're now spending fighting terrorism and put it towards reducing the above deaths we'd save hundreds of thousands of people a year, and we could do it without infringing on their rights.

Unfortunately, it's not about keeping people safe, it's about controlling people, and people like you are perfectly happy with it.

I'm not happy with being controlled I just don't think that's what is happening in this instance. It's absurd to think that everything the Government does is to purposly infringe on your rights or control the populace. I hear a lot of people say they hate what is going on yet they never seem to have a way to fix it. If you have a better way to keep people safe than please voice it. Many can't seem to grasp that it's not always black and white. Freedom comes with a cost and sometimes sacrifice. Having served this Country I know this to be true. I find it funny that so many Americans are perfectly fine with their Military members having to sacrifice in the name of freedom, but are not willing to do the same. I love the ideals and principles that this nation is based on, but am not nieve enough to not see times have changed and, even though it sucks, those principles and ideals are not in the best interest of the people all the time. No one seems to think of these issues from a total population point of view, instead from a personal one. Personally I have my own opinion about things, but frankly who am I to make things the way I want them. When this great nation was founded it didn't have all these problems or issues to deal with, that's the short of it. Now we elect people to figure out how to deal with it. Then those same people who voted get upset when they do something they disagree with. That's life, you can't make all the people happy all the time. The best you can hope for is to make some of the people happy some of the time. Personally I don't want my family or myslef subjected to pat downs or scans, but I do know a few people that I would want scanned or patted before entering a plan. So to be fair and not infringe on their individual rights, we all have to do it. For everthing I would like to see or you would like to see happen, there is someone else who thinks that would infringe on their rights. Call me what you want and think what you want about me but things need to change and that change might suck at times.

 

[doug1980]

Let people carry guns on planes. Gun-free zones are easy targets.

Doug, I was hoping you would respond to my last comment. Disarming everybody at Fort Hood actually helped 43 people get shot. "Disarmed safety" is an oxymoron.

I agree gun free zones don't work, but would you really want all those people carrying a gun at 30,000 feet? I'm not sure that's the best way to solve it either.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm not happy with being controlled I just don't think that's what is happening in this instance. It's absurd to think that everything the Government does is to purposly infringe on your rights or control the populace. I hear a lot of people say they hate what is going on yet they never seem to have a way to fix it. If you have a better way to keep people safe than please voice it. Many can't seem to grasp that it's not always black and white. Freedom comes with a cost and sometimes sacrifice. Having served this Country I know this to be true. I find it funny that so many Americans are perfectly fine with their Military members having to sacrifice in the name of freedom, but are not willing to do the same. I love the ideals and principles that this nation is based on, but am not nieve enough to not see times have changed and, even though it sucks, those principles and ideals are not in the best interest of the people all the time. No one seems to think of these issues from a total population point of view, instead from a personal one. Personally I have my own opinion about things, but frankly who am I to make things the way I want them. When this great nation was founded it didn't have all these problems or issues to deal with, that's the short of it. Now we elect people to figure out how to deal with it. Then those same people who voted get upset when they do something they disagree with. That's life, you can't make all the people happy all the time. The best you can hope for is to make some of the people happy some of the time. Personally I don't want my family or myslef subjected to pat downs or scans, but I do know a few people that I would want scanned or patted before entering a plan. So to be fair and not infringe on their individual rights, we all have to do it. For everthing I would like to see or you would like to see happen, there is someone else who thinks that would infringe on their rights. Call me what you want and think what you want about me but things need to change and that change might suck at times.

Watch it Doug. You'll offend the Wonderland gang.

It's easy to complain. It's hard to come up with a fix.

Wish I could rep you but I'm out. I don't agree with everything you say but you've put forth a reasoned and thoughtful synopsis of the issue.

I agree gun free zones don't work, but would you really want all those people carrying a gun at 30,000 feet? I'm not sure that's the best way to solve it either.

Whether at 30,000 feet or ground level is the same to me. I have no problem with people having firearms in either location. I am slightly more concerned about the ramifications of people opening fire at 30,000 feet on an airplane than at Starbucks, simply because the potential outcome is more detremental by virtue of simple physics - a launched projectile will travel until sufficient resistance is encountered to stop it. In an airplane the probablity of piercing the fuselage seems to be high. Admittedly I'm not an aircraft structural mechanic so I don't know for sure.

 

[rambone]

If you have a better way to keep people safe than please voice it.

The 2nd & 4th amendments. Quit searching us and let us use our freedoms to protect our own safety.

Freedom comes with a cost and sometimes sacrifice. Having served this Country I know this to be true. I find it funny that so many Americans are perfectly fine with their Military members having to sacrifice in the name of freedom, but are not willing to do the same.

We are protecting freedom by being forced to sacrifice it? That is outlandish. Don't assume because anyone hasn't joined the military, or criticizes the hell out of the government, that they wouldn't be willing to die for their freedom. Militia played a pretty big role in establishing that freedom.

Also, don't confuse "safety" with "freedom." If you are fighting for safety, then your statements come together a little more clearly. But freedom means laying off the searches and not taking our weapons. Our freedom is in shambles right now, and I think any perception of "safety" we have is a false one.

I love the ideals and principles that this nation is based on, but am not nieve enough to not see times have changed and, even though it sucks, those principles and ideals are not in the best interest of the people all the time.

This makes me sad. You are abandoning the cause of "Freedom" for one of "Security."

The only way "terror" will win is if we destroy our own freedoms. They could never take us down by their own efforts. We have to be whipped into a frenzy and believe that times have changed and freedom sucks. We are doing a great job of destroying our own freedoms every day. I am not appreciative of that and I am NOT feeling any safer.

The 4th amendment is timeless and the reasons for it have not changed one bit.

No one seems to think of these issues from a total population point of view, instead from a personal one.

Personal freedom is the basis of the country. The collectivist mindset of is what is the biggest threat to America.

Personally I don't want my family or myslef subjected to pat downs or scans, but I do know a few people that I would want scanned or patted before entering a plan. So to be fair and not infringe on their individual rights, we all have to do it.

Believe me, individual rights are being infringed, ALL of ours. If the world is too dangerous for you, as SemperFiUSMC will tell you, you can always stay home if you don't want to be exposed to it.


Back to Wonderland for me. Have a nice Thanksgiving all.

 

[Ogre]

The 2nd & 4th amendments. Quit searching us and let us use our freedoms to protect our own safety.......
.....Believe me, individual rights are being infringed, ALL of ours. If the world is too dangerous for you, as SemperFiUSMC will tell you, you can always stay home if you don't want to be exposed to it.


Back to Wonderland for me. Have a nice Thanksgiving all.

rep'd

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm not happy with being controlled I just don't think that's what is happening in this instance. It's absurd to think that everything the Government does is to purposly infringe on your rights or control the populace. I hear a lot of people say they hate what is going on yet they never seem to have a way to fix it. If you have a better way to keep people safe than please voice it. Many can't seem to grasp that it's not always black and white. Freedom comes with a cost and sometimes sacrifice. Having served this Country I know this to be true. I find it funny that so many Americans are perfectly fine with their Military members having to sacrifice in the name of freedom, but are not willing to do the same. I love the ideals and principles that this nation is based on, but am not nieve enough to not see times have changed and, even though it sucks, those principles and ideals are not in the best interest of the people all the time. No one seems to think of these issues from a total population point of view, instead from a personal one. Personally I have my own opinion about things, but frankly who am I to make things the way I want them. When this great nation was founded it didn't have all these problems or issues to deal with, that's the short of it. Now we elect people to figure out how to deal with it. Then those same people who voted get upset when they do something they disagree with. That's life, you can't make all the people happy all the time. The best you can hope for is to make some of the people happy some of the time. Personally I don't want my family or myslef subjected to pat downs or scans, but I do know a few people that I would want scanned or patted before entering a plan. So to be fair and not infringe on their individual rights, we all have to do it. For everthing I would like to see or you would like to see happen, there is someone else who thinks that would infringe on their rights. Call me what you want and think what you want about me but things need to change and that change might suck at times.

Service in the military is not the only way that people can serve their community and their nation. My entire adult life has been involved in public safety and a large part of it I've not even gotten paid for it. I have an intense interest in helping keep people safe. But I don't believe in putting a lot of effort into methods that simply do not increase public safety any significant amount, yet at the same time do substantially decrease the freedoms we have.

As my prior post pointed out, a point you seem to ignore, the security measures you are so cavalier about don't substantially increase public safety. If the interest were primarily to increase public safety then we'd address other things that threaten public safety on a much greater scale.

We currently live in a country that won't spend a billion dollars to save one person from a real and direct and immediate threat, but we'll spend a billion dollars per person saved from "terrorism."

 

[doug1980]

Service in the military is not the only way that people can serve their community and their nation. My entire adult life has been involved in public safety and a large part of it I've not even gotten paid for it. I have an intense interest in helping keep people safe. But I don't believe in putting a lot of effort into methods that simply do not increase public safety any significant amount, yet at the same time do substantially decrease the freedoms we have.

As my prior post pointed out, a point you seem to ignore, the security measures you are so cavalier about don't substantially increase public safety. If the interest were primarily to increase public safety then we'd address other things that threaten public safety on a much greater scale.

We currently live in a country that won't spend a billion dollars to save one person from a real and direct and immediate threat, but we'll spend a billion dollars per person saved from "terrorism."

I'm not ignoring your point nor am I saying what they are doing is the perfect answer. But how can you say it isn't substantially increasing public safety, it just started? No one even wants to try it and see if it could work. Everyone just wants to whine and complain about it. I still have yet to see anyone conger up an alternate method. Aside from everyone being able to carry a firearm, which would not stop the terrorists at all, or just doing nothing what else could we do. I'm just trying to get some of you to stop for one second, forget that they are infringing on your rights, stop thinking as if the whole country revolves around you and only you and try to come up with a better answer to the problem that will benefit everyone. From the rich to the poor, republicans, democrats, the young and the old. Come up with an answer that works for everyone and keeps everyone happy since the governmnet can't seem to do it. I bet you can't do any better than them either. That's just the way it is. No matter what happens some people will be against it. Whether it's you or I or our neighbors someone will not like it guaranteed.

 

[Legba]

You mean to tell me that for me to use someones service or too enter onto or into their property I have to abide by their rules? What is this world coming to?

 

[ocsdor]

Whether at 30,000 feet or ground level is the same to me. I have no problem with people having firearms in either location. I am slightly more concerned about the ramifications of people opening fire at 30,000 feet on an airplane than at Starbucks, simply because the potential outcome is more detremental by virtue of simple physics - a launched projectile will travel until sufficient resistance is encountered to stop it. In an airplane the probablity of piercing the fuselage seems to be high. Admittedly I'm not an aircraft structural mechanic so I don't know for sure.

Piercing the fuselage poses very little risk to the aircraft safety. The problem comes if the projectile hits a vital system such as hydraulic lines, fuel lines, or FOD damage to the engine.

Even so, I believe those risk are worth taking compared to the current system we have in place (both in aircraft safety and freedom protection).

fyi: I have several years (though not current) experience in aircraft maintenance; A&P for 3 of those years.

 

[rambone]

No one even wants to try it and see if it could work. Everyone just wants to whine and complain about it.

Whine and complain? People are furious. They aren't pouting because they don't like this great new game the Feds want to play with us. They don't want to be radiated, ogled, touched, groped, or stripped. There is strong evidence the method is unconstitutional to begin with.

I still have yet to see anyone conger up an alternate method. Aside from everyone being able to carry a firearm, which would not stop the terrorists at all, or just doing nothing what else could we do.

Nobody wants to try my idea! I think it makes more sense to not create giant disarmed zones where guys with sporks can be the most well-armed in the room.

I'm just trying to get some of you to stop for one second, forget that they are infringing on your rights, stop thinking as if the whole country revolves around you and only you and try to come up with a better answer to the problem that will benefit everyone.

We need more people who worry about our rights, follow their oath, defend the constitution... and a lot LESS people thinking that the government is their friend, and that we can sacrifice the rights that our forefathers fought and died for.