Man punches Indy TSA screener in the chest

[jeremy]

We could always just ALL write the Indianapolis Airport Muncipality and explain that we are driving to our destinations instead of flying to them because of the TSA guidelines that are in place...

Indianapolis International Airport

 

[MilitaryArms]

When the TSA lackey grabs your junk, why not reach over and grab his? See if charges are filed.

 

[CarmelHP]

Sorry about this but, here you go...

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.

How is that power to subject civilian control to military authority? The President is civilian authority, that's why he's CinC so civilian authority remains in control. In what cases has the Supreme Court ruled "martial law," meaning military law making and direct administration of civilian areas, permissible? What case or controversy was it related to? Using the military to put down a rebellion is not the same as handing the reins of government to the military.

 

[jeremy]

How is that power to subject civilian control to military authority? The President is civilian authority, that's why he's CinC so civilian authority remains in control. In what cases has the Supreme Court ruled "martial law," meaning military law making and direct administration of civilian areas, permissible? What case or controversy was it related to? Using the military to put down a rebellion is not the same as handing the reins of government to the military.

Let me have a couple of days to dig up the references...

 

[ruger17hmr]

There is a fine line between the encroachment of privacy and Uncle Sam's desire to control every aspect of our lives. LOL

 

[Militarypol21]

All you "Anti-Government" folks need to stop your wining! It's not your right to fly, it's your choice. If you don't want to be "manhandled" by the TSA, take a bus, drive a car, walk, hell crawl.. I don't really care! Nobody is forcing you to get on an airplane here.

Before 9/11 all we ever hear about is how we could have prevented 9/11. Where are the Security checkpoints? Why did this have to happen? Now years later, people are crying about there being additional security measurments. Which is it? Either way, a majority of America is not going to be happy.

I for one would rather be "patted down" than to have the plane myself and my family are on to crash into a building. JUST GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES!

 

[thompal]

All you "Anti-Government" folks need to stop your wining!

You seem to be one of those people who equate "pro rights" with "anti-government."

Rather an odd stance for someone who took an oath to defend our Constitution, since your idea of how we should "defend our Constitution" seems to start with "ignore the concept of rights so they can be eliminated."

 

[Freedom Ninja]

All you "Anti-Government" folks need to stop your wining! It's not your right...

King George could not have said it better.

What would happen if you acted completely normal during the opt-out. Let him feel you up and right as he was done, you bite the bullet and grab onto his junk? I can't imagine what they would do. "HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!". That would be such an awesome lawsuit.

Laughing out loud! Such an act would prove an excellent point to the TSA, but you also run the risk of finding out that the guy who just felt you up has a raging hard on. That begs question; How do you know it was you, and not your wife or children, that gave him the boner? I apologize in advance for being so perverted, but I do actually have a wife and 2 year old that would probably prefer not to be porn stars.

 

[lashicoN]

All you "Anti-Government" folks need to stop your wining! It's not your right to fly, it's your choice. If you don't want to be "manhandled" by the TSA, take a bus, drive a car, walk, hell crawl.. I don't really care! Nobody is forcing you to get on an airplane here.

Before 9/11 all we ever hear about is how we could have prevented 9/11. Where are the Security checkpoints? Why did this have to happen? Now years later, people are crying about there being additional security measurments. Which is it? Either way, a majority of America is not going to be happy.

I for one would rather be "patted down" than to have the plane myself and my family are on to crash into a building. JUST GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES!

We don't have the right to fly? Really? Do we have the right to drive? The right to walk? We have the right to travel as we please, as free people. Our government doesn't own the skies! Before 9/11 people were talking about how we could have prevented it?

I for one would rather live and travel freely, knowing that I could die at any moment, as anyone can. I'm sick of terrorists hijacking my freedoms in the name of safety and security. Human beings will die. The sooner we can just get over that fact, the sooner we can all move on with our freedoms.

King George could not have said it better.



Laughing out loud! Such an act would prove an excellent point to the TSA, but you also run the risk of finding out that the guy who just felt you up has a raging hard on. That begs question; How do you know it was you, and not your wife or children, that gave him the boner? I apologize in advance for being so perverted, but I do actually have a wife and 2 year old that would probably prefer not to be porn stars.

 

[BigMatt]

We don't have the right to fly? Really? Do we have the right to drive? The right to walk? We have the right to travel as we please, as free people.

Is flying a right? Should anyone be able to fly a plane?

Should people just be able to drive a car without a license?

These are not rights, they are privileges. If I got in a plane without any training and flew over your house, would you like it? The government doesn't own the sky, but it is their responsibility to govern and administer the rules that make it safe.

I am not saying that they are doing the best job of it, but they are supposed to keep the skies safe.

I am on the fence as far as this is concerned -

On one hand, I think that the government conditioning us for "bigger and better" things.

On the other hand, I think you can drive, walk, ride a bus, ride a train or whatever you need to do to get to you destination.

Next week, I will be flying for my job, and I will go through whatever stuff I have to in order to get to my destination. My other choice is to not go, talk to my boss and possibly lose my job - but that is my choice - the government isn't making me do anything.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

We don't have the right to fly? Really? Do we have the right to drive? The right to walk? We have the right to travel as we please, as free people. Our government doesn't own the skies! Before 9/11 people were talking about how we could have prevented it?

I for one would rather live and travel freely, knowing that I could die at any moment, as anyone can. I'm sick of terrorists hijacking my freedoms in the name of safety and security. Human beings will die. The sooner we can just get over that fact, the sooner we can all move on with our freedoms.

You're confusing what is a right to what is right. You do not have a right to fly. However, it's not right to have your junk busted by TSA if you do fly. There is a distinction between the two. And one is no less important than the other.

Easy solution. Eliminate the TSA and send the affirmative action brownshirts home. Unfortunately it won't happen. Now they are organizing. %@#@#$% unions.

 

[rambone]

On the other hand, I think you can drive, walk, ride a bus, ride a train or whatever you need to do to get to you destination.

Next week, I will be flying for my job, and I will go through whatever stuff I have to in order to get to my destination. My other choice is to not go, talk to my boss and possibly lose my job - but that is my choice - the government isn't making me do anything.

I don't buy this "avoidance theory" when it comes to keeping your rights. What if the TSA checkpoints were at the end of your driveway? Would you be happy with people telling you that if you don't like it, stay on your property? Nobody is making you leave your property?

That is not how rights work. They don't have the power to ban free speech in certain areas and they don't have the power to conduct unwarranted searches in certain areas. It doesn't matter if there are other available routes or not. They don't have the power to force these unconstitutional measures on any method of travel.

All you "Anti-Government" folks need to stop your wining! It's not your right to fly, it's your choice. If you don't want to be "manhandled" by the TSA, take a bus, drive a car, walk, hell crawl.. I don't really care! Nobody is forcing you to get on an airplane here.

Before 9/11 all we ever hear about is how we could have prevented 9/11. Where are the Security checkpoints? Why did this have to happen? Now years later, people are crying about there being additional security measurments. Which is it? Either way, a majority of America is not going to be happy.

I for one would rather be "patted down" than to have the plane myself and my family are on to crash into a building. JUST GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES!

You are supposed to be defending the 4th Amendment, not telling us to get over it!!

 

[lashicoN]

Is flying a right? Should anyone be able to fly a plane?

Should people just be able to drive a car without a license?

These are not rights, they are privileges. If I got in a plane without any training and flew over your house, would you like it? The government doesn't own the sky, but it is their responsibility to govern and administer the rules that make it safe.

I am not saying that they are doing the best job of it, but they are supposed to keep the skies safe.

I am on the fence as far as this is concerned -

On one hand, I think that the government conditioning us for "bigger and better" things.

On the other hand, I think you can drive, walk, ride a bus, ride a train or whatever you need to do to get to you destination.

Next week, I will be flying for my job, and I will go through whatever stuff I have to in order to get to my destination. My other choice is to not go, talk to my boss and possibly lose my job - but that is my choice - the government isn't making me do anything.

If flying isn't a right, then how is walking or riding a bus a right? I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.

I think people should be able to drive a car without a license, we pay for the roads. A license is simply a tax and a condition on the people by the government. It's a trick and you've fallen for it. Did our founders issue a license to drive a horse? A license to carry a musket? A license to drive a wagon? Maybe we need to recall all those settlers who illegally traveled West without a government issued wagon driver's license.

These things are not privileges. Having a job is a privilege. You have no right to a job. If someone doesn't want to hire you, you can't make them, but you do have the right to start your own business and employ yourself.

Privilege - a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

When the government offers no choice, usually people either do what they are told or rebel. Yes, I could take a bus to my destination, but how long will it be before they have scanners and security lines at bus stops? How long will it be before we have to prick our finger to start our car? How far does the arm of safety reach? If junk food isn't safe, and you believe the government's job is to keep everything safe, do you believe they have the right to tell us what to eat, when to sleep, when to drive, where to work, all in the name of a safer, yet enslaved, United States?

 

[BigMatt]

I think people should be able to drive a car without a license, we pay for the roads. A license is simply a tax and a condition on the people by the government. It's a trick and you've fallen for it. Did our founders issue a license to drive a horse? A license to carry a musket? A license to drive a wagon? Maybe we need to recall all those settlers who illegally traveled West without a government issued wagon driver's license.

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.

I am of the opinion that government shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our own bodies, but when it comes to the point when we are affecting someone else, that's when government needs to step in.

When a 12 year old has the opportunity to run someone over with a car, the government should step in. When a 16 year old with a license doesn't want to wear his seatbelt, he shouldn't have to.

I will be the first one to say the government is doing it all wrong with the TSA, but I also say that if you feel that strongly about it, you should walk.

 

[DragonGunner]

"Government is for the common good, protection, safety, prosperity, and the happiness of the people, not for profit, honor, private interest of any man, family, class of men, therefore, the people alone have an inconstestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when protection, safety, prosperty and happiness require it." John Adams 1776

I'm not happy with TSA sexually assualting people, an for "certains" in our government that are using them, an trying to get them unionized for more profit, an self interest..(you all know are prez number one priority is for the Unions right?)....no one is being protected here by these measures...the government has overstepped here, like so much that they do.

 

[Freedom Ninja]

What if the TSA checkpoints were at the end of your driveway? Would you be happy with people telling you that if you don't like it, stay on your property?

I think rambone has the best idea. Apply his logic, and I think you will fall off of the fence and land on the "right" side. Either that or you will fall off the fence and get a concussion, because your brain just won't understand what we're trying to say.

I am of the opinion that government shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our own bodies, but when it comes to the point when we are affecting someone else, that's when government needs to step in.

I'm not sure that I understand your post. This is a pro gun rights forum? Matt, by your own line of reasoning you are saying that it is okay for law makers, to take away our right to own a firearm because it might affect someone else. It sounds as though you are okay, with the government preemptively taking away our rights, if they have the potential to endanger the lives of others. Well, they cant' do that, and somehow we've let them get away with it for too long. You can't put Tom Cruise in jail because a psychic thinks he's going to murder somebody.

 

[lashicoN]

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.

I am of the opinion that government shouldn't be able to tell us what to do with our own bodies, but when it comes to the point when we are affecting someone else, that's when government needs to step in.

When a 12 year old has the opportunity to run someone over with a car, the government should step in. When a 16 year old with a license doesn't want to wear his seatbelt, he shouldn't have to.

I will be the first one to say the government is doing it all wrong with the TSA, but I also say that if you feel that strongly about it, you should walk.

I know, it's a completely radical idea to let a person who is old enough to afford to purchase a car, pay taxes for roads, stop signs, and traffic lights - climb on in that same car and drive it freely on those same roads without an enlightened official from the government giving that person permission to use their own property on their own property. I think it is pretty black and white. How old does a kid have to be to shoot a rifle or shotgun with his dad? How old does he/she have to be to hunt? How old does one need to be to ride a horse or a bike? Can a child not trample people on a horse? Can't kids run people down on bikes? How about a moped? A car?

A person should be able to operate a motor vehicle when they are ready, not when the government says they are ready. I really don't see what age has to do with it, to a certain point.

If a kid goes out driving before he knows how to and wrecks your fence, he gets a ticket and has to pay for your new fence. If he kills someone, charge him with killing someone. I don't think we would have very many parents letting their 4 year olds take the family car out for a joy ride without government licensing in place.

When a 12 year old has to opportunity to kill someone with his hunting rifle (which is every time he places it in his hands) should the government also step in and play "strict parents" on the kid? I really just see no end to this safety madness. Do you want to "nerf the world"?

 

[BigMatt]

I'm not sure that I understand your post. This is a pro gun rights forum? Matt, by your own line of reasoning you are saying that it is okay for law makers, to take away our right to own a firearm because it might affect someone else. It sounds as though you are okay, with the government preemptively taking away our rights, if they have the potential to endanger the lives of others. Well, they cant' do that, and somehow we've let them get away with it for too long. You can't put Tom Cruise in jail because a psychic thinks he's going to murder somebody.

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.

It takes real guts to get online and write that you are Billy Badass and that all government should go away.

If a kid goes out driving before he knows how to and wrecks your fence, he gets a ticket and has to pay for your new fence. If he kills someone, charge him with killing someone. I don't think we would have very many parents letting their 4 year olds take the family car out for a joy ride without government licensing in place.

When a 12 year old has to opportunity to kill someone with his hunting rifle (which is every time he places it in his hands) should the government also step in and play "strict parents" on the kid? I really just see no end to this safety madness. Do you want to "nerf the world"?

I don't want to "Nerf" the world, but are you against any regulations at all? If so, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you look around, you see parents that not only let their kids do stupid stuff, they condone it. They are blowing pot smoke into their toddlers' faces for goodness sake. They sure as heck wouldn't think twice about letting their 10 year old kid drive down to the liquor store and pick them up a fifth of vodka.

I am for "small government", not "no government"

 

[lashicoN]

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.

I don't want to "Nerf" the world, but are you against any regulations at all? If so, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you look around, you see parents that not only let their kids do stupid stuff, they condone it. They are blowing pot smoke into their toddlers' faces for goodness sake. They sure as heck wouldn't think twice about letting their 10 year old kid drive down to the liquor store and pick them up a fifth of vodka.

I am for "small government", not "no government"

Why do you think we have the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to keep and drive cars? Can we survive without arms or cars? Yes, but the idea is that free people should be capable of defending themselves and free people should equally travel freely. I'm not talking about citizens being able to own nukes or citizens being able to ride a parade of elephants through your front yard. I believe Americans have the right to own and operate a fully automatic firearm. I'm not saying you have the right to shoot up the mall or use it recklessly, you simply have the right to keep and bear it for defense. Why don't you think it should be the same for a nation of "free" travelers? I'm saying you have the right to own and operate any normal means of transportation. A horse, a bike, a car, a plane, a space ship...I don't think you should have to purchase a government license to own or operate either the gun or the car, because I believe in freedom.

We pay taxes for the roads, if we have a license to drive or not. We pay taxes for the upkeep, plowing, road signs, and stop lights, so shouldn't we be able to use what we pay for, without purchasing a license and getting our government (our employees) permission?

The skies are free. People should be able to board a plane as easy as climbing into a car, in an ideal world. But we always move first to take away good people's self defense, then the government steps in to make sure nothing gets on board. Are hijackings really that serious? How many have we had? Is this the best way to deal with the problem? Why can't the good people carry knives for self defense on an airplane? Why can't they make the cockpit door impenetrable? Why do they have to subject us all to this complete bull****? We're to the point where they are literally stripping us down to the nude to inspect our bodies, and if we refuse, then they grope us. It's demeaning and it's stupid. Worst of all, the government, as always, does the thing that makes the least sense and angers the most people in as many ways as humanly possible. I'm ashamed of the TSA and the American people who support what they are doing to us, mentally and physically.

Stupid people will sort themselves out, but it's funny... when I say drop the driver's license and let parents have some control over their children's lives you equate that to a doped up mom blowing pot smoke (which isn't actually harmful *not that I condone blowing pot smoke in a kid's face*) in her kids face, then sending them off to a liquor store to pick up some Vodka. You just made it abundantly clear how you feel about the idea of freedom, and how afraid of it you truly are.

 

[thompal]

If flying isn't a right, then how is walking or riding a bus a right? I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.

I think people should be able to drive a car without a license, we pay for the roads. A license is simply a tax and a condition on the people by the government. It's a trick and you've fallen for it. Did our founders issue a license to drive a horse? A license to carry a musket? A license to drive a wagon? Maybe we need to recall all those settlers who illegally traveled West without a government issued wagon driver's license.

There's a flaw in your argument. Our taxes are used to build and maintain roads. We can buy a car with our own money. We should, therefore, be able to drive without government permission. However, (in a bail-out-free world) our taxes are not used to maintain commercial aircraft, pay the pilots, or maintain airports. I would recognize the airlines' right to choose which customers it wants to "serve," just as I would support any PRIVATE business' right to set conditions on their customers. However, this situation doesn't fit into any of those molds. Here, there is a private company (an airline) that allows the government to set conditions on their customers, and those conditions have the force of law. The airline has no say in the matter.

It amounts to just one more infringement by the government that people put up with strictly for convenience. It's more CONVENIENT to fly than it is to drive, therefore the proles put up with it rather than take a stand for their rights. They willingly listen to the Two Minute Hate, and actually believe that they love Big Brother.