Man punches Indy TSA screener in the chest

[thompal]

Let me get this straight...You think that anyone should be able to drive a car without training? You think that anyone should be able to fly without government approval? Where does it end? It is not a black and white issue. It isn't cut and dry.

I hate big government too, but there has to be some middle ground.

Ahhh, COMPROMISE!! A situation where neither party gets what they want!
A "give and take," where the citizens GIVE their freedoms away, and the government happily TAKES. Also known as a Slippery Slope, because once you START giving away your freedoms, there tends to be no end to your giving (or to the government's taking).

Just out of curiosity, why in the world do you think that we should have to ask for the government's "permission" before we are "allowed" to fly?

 

[thompal]

This is a pro gun rights forum. Gun rights are very important and at the other end of the scale from the "right/privilege" to drive a car. Guys can jump on this forum and shout at the top of their lungs that they want everyone to have guns and how there should be no regulation, but when it comes down to it, do they really want to have violent felons convicted of child molestation legally open carrying guns on their hips into an elementary school? - I don't.

You might get some push-back even to this concept. You say that you don't want convicted felons carrying guns. I would ask why not? Either they have "paid their debt to society," or they haven't. Are you scared that they may commit a crime? How about those UNconvicted felons which roam the streets? For that matter, how about the previously innocent? Is there no chance that a member from either of those subsets may commit a crime? Consider also that it's not just VIOLENT felons who are prevented from owning firearms, it's ANY felon. So those people who screwed up on their taxes, or toked a joint 15 years ago are also prevented from owning a firearm. Do we consider that their lives are now worth nothing, since we, as a society, now claim that they have no right to defend themselves? Is there any purpose served by insisting that someone who grew pot in his backyard now must be unable to defend his family?

If you feel that convicted felons have not paid their debt to society, then you should suggest that the government revisit their sentencing guidelines. If you feel that sentencing guidelines are adequate, then, when they are release, are they not restored to "human?" Our rights do not come from the government. If you believe that they come from a higher power as a result of our "human-ness," then do you claim that society has the collective right to declare someone to be sub-human, even as we claim that they are ready to re-enter society? Why not just let them go after they serve their sentence, and if they commit another crime, give them a harsher sentence? I would suggest that a hard-core violent person who intends to commit more violent crimes is probably not going to be deterred by the government denying his 4473.