Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 249250251252253 269>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 09:02
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

OK my friends.  The public is going nuts.  You say you don't want pat-downs.  We don't want scanners.  We don't want profiling.  We don't like the Israeli approach. 

If we're against all of these things, then what would you propose?   Be specific.  Focus like a laser beam.   What is YOUR idea for protecting the flying public from people carrying on bombs or weapons?

Or do you simply feel we should do nothing, and let everyone board a plane with no deterrent? 

So today, Pat, Teo, MoM, anyone else who opposes what we're doing, you guys are have just taken your new job which is to protect the flying public, or you are working privately for the airline as their security liason. 

What do we do?

First off you're asking an entrepreneurial question. I can't answer that. It is something whose details will be worked out on the market. To steal an argument from Block, suppose shoes were made solely (PUN GET IT) by the government. If I were proposing that shoes be made and sold on the free-market instead, for much the same reason I've mentioned in these TSA cases, you could start to ask questions like : What colors would shoes come in? Would shoe manufacturers also make socks? Would they have shoe laces or be slip-ons?

These are questions for the market to decide.

If you ask me personally, I think very little needs to be done. A metal detector if airports chose, though I support people carry guns onto planes. Other than a metal detector I don't see a need for anything. There's no reason to take your shoes off. No reason to have 8oz of toothpaste in a clear ziplock bag, no reason to get your genitals grabbed.

Access to the undercarriage of a plane is completely unguarded and people are worried about shoe bombers. It's ridiculous. The TSA doesn't keep you safe, nor it is intended to do so. 
 
Being able to carry a gun on a plane is surely mental?  If someone tried to take over the plane then they would have guns and all the other nutters would have guns.  So when they all started firing - well you might be lucky - but you might not.  Or you might just have nutters shooting up planes like they occasionally do in schools colleges etc.  And just how big a gun would you allow?  Machine guns ok?
 
 

Hmmm seems like I could make the same argument for guns everywhere. Yet every place in America doesn't routinely turn into a Michael Bay film. 

It's funny you bring up colleges and schools, you know places where guns aren't allowed. Ever wonder why people chose those areas to commit their murders? If you're going to rob a pool hall, do you rob the one that allows its patrons to bring guns or the one that forbids it? 

As for gun sizes it's really irrelevant to me. A person has as much right to own an AK-47 as they do to own a stick of gum.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 09:06
Pat, you do support a businesses right to make their own rules on their property, correct?    So, Walmart can throw you out of their store, or surveil you if they want, and I assume you'd support their right to do so.  Private business. 

So what if TSA were gone, and private airlines concluded they need/want to pat down people who come onto their business property....the plane.  They should be allowed to do it? 
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 09:19
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

OK my friends.  The public is going nuts.  You say you don't want pat-downs.  We don't want scanners.  We don't want profiling.  We don't like the Israeli approach. 

If we're against all of these things, then what would you propose?   Be specific.  Focus like a laser beam.   What is YOUR idea for protecting the flying public from people carrying on bombs or weapons?

Or do you simply feel we should do nothing, and let everyone board a plane with no deterrent? 

So today, Pat, Teo, MoM, anyone else who opposes what we're doing, you guys are have just taken your new job which is to protect the flying public, or you are working privately for the airline as their security liason. 

What do we do?

First off you're asking an entrepreneurial question. I can't answer that. It is something whose details will be worked out on the market. To steal an argument from Block, suppose shoes were made solely (PUN GET IT) by the government. If I were proposing that shoes be made and sold on the free-market instead, for much the same reason I've mentioned in these TSA cases, you could start to ask questions like : What colors would shoes come in? Would shoe manufacturers also make socks? Would they have shoe laces or be slip-ons?

These are questions for the market to decide.

If you ask me personally, I think very little needs to be done. A metal detector if airports chose, though I support people carry guns onto planes. Other than a metal detector I don't see a need for anything. There's no reason to take your shoes off. No reason to have 8oz of toothpaste in a clear ziplock bag, no reason to get your genitals grabbed.

Access to the undercarriage of a plane is completely unguarded and people are worried about shoe bombers. It's ridiculous. The TSA doesn't keep you safe, nor it is intended to do so. 
 
Being able to carry a gun on a plane is surely mental?  If someone tried to take over the plane then they would have guns and all the other nutters would have guns.  So when they all started firing - well you might be lucky - but you might not.  Or you might just have nutters shooting up planes like they occasionally do in schools colleges etc.  And just how big a gun would you allow?  Machine guns ok?
 
 

Hmmm seems like I could make the same argument for guns everywhere. Yet every place in America doesn't routinely turn into a Michael Bay film. 

It's funny you bring up colleges and schools, you know places where guns aren't allowed. Ever wonder why people chose those areas to commit their murders? If you're going to rob a pool hall, do you rob the one that allows its patrons to bring guns or the one that forbids it? 

As for gun sizes it's really irrelevant to me. A person has as much right to own an AK-47 as they do to own a stick of gum.
 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


Edited by akamaisondufromage - November 20 2010 at 09:20
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 13:39
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

OK my friends.  The public is going nuts.  You say you don't want pat-downs.  We don't want scanners.  We don't want profiling.  We don't like the Israeli approach. 


I want profiling. It's not my fault you don't agree with me.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 13:42
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


What if the shop is a gas station? When is the last time someone blew up a gas station by firing their perfectly legal gun into the tanks? It just doesn't happen in real life, I don't know why you assume it would happen on planes more than anywhere else.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 13:44
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, you do support a businesses right to make their own rules on their property, correct?    So, Walmart can throw you out of their store, or surveil you if they want, and I assume you'd support their right to do so.  Private business. 

So what if TSA were gone, and private airlines concluded they need/want to pat down people who come onto their business property....the plane.  They should be allowed to do it? 
 
 
I don't see why not but they might find themselves out of business after awhile.  Assuming the government doesn't artificially prop up the failing airline and limit who's allowed to enter the market/compete with them.  They would, however, because I'm sure airlines are on the "too big to fail" list. 
 
Also, to Equality's point:  I think an AK-47 might have to be checked, due to it's size.  I'm not entirely sure, though, as I've never actually held one.


Edited by manofmystery - November 20 2010 at 13:47


Time always wins.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 15:13
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

OK my friends.  The public is going nuts.  You say you don't want pat-downs.  We don't want scanners.  We don't want profiling.  We don't like the Israeli approach. 


I want profiling. It's not my fault you don't agree with me.


But I do agree with you, or at least am willing to listen to the experts opinion on it.  I'd consider profiling/passenger engagement where it makes sense, I'm really "all of the above" on this stuff.  We need a multi-prong approach, revising our tactics as threats change, using different tactics and shifting tactics so that have an element of surprise.  Nothing is perfect, but we need to make some effort beyond chance as our strategy.  We just need to figure out how to do it quickly so passengers aren't waiting around all day long. 


Edited by Finnforest - November 20 2010 at 15:15
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 15:28
Profiling just means that they will have to use people who won't be likely to be singled out.  We will never be totally safe until we turn off all people to flying on commercial airlines and anal probe everyone who are still willing.  For crying out loud, Sullenberger said this is pointless.  I think he is someone worthy of being listened to.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-16/travel/travel.airport.security.measures_1_chesley-sully-sullenberger-tsa-procedures-security-screening?_s=PM:TRAVEL


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 20 2010 at 15:31
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 15:28
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


What if the shop is a gas station? When is the last time someone blew up a gas station by firing their perfectly legal gun into the tanks? It just doesn't happen in real life, I don't know why you assume it would happen on planes more than anywhere else.
 
 
Gosh silly me!  Or an explosives shop maybe.  Yes this doesn't happen (Often) in real life.  My concern is that (See above) people tend to lose it on planes its called 'Air-rage' or something like that, not just terrorists tha knows.  Although there are terrorists too.  My assumption that it would happen more on planes is well, just an assumption in your head. 
 
I do think that we need to get the Terrorist bit into perspective mind..  Many more people die on hte roads every day and people accept it as part of life (Or death).
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 15:57
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


What if the shop is a gas station? When is the last time someone blew up a gas station by firing their perfectly legal gun into the tanks? It just doesn't happen in real life, I don't know why you assume it would happen on planes more than anywhere else.
 
 
Gosh silly me!  Or an explosives shop maybe.  Yes this doesn't happen (Often) in real life.  My concern is that (See above) people tend to lose it on planes its called 'Air-rage' or something like that, not just terrorists tha knows.  Although there are terrorists too.  My assumption that it would happen more on planes is well, just an assumption in your head. 
 
I do think that we need to get the Terrorist bit into perspective mind..  Many more people die on hte roads every day and people accept it as part of life (Or death).


People have road rage too and its legal to carry guns in cars, but you don't see people shooting each other on roads left and right.  I think you overestimate how willing people are to shoot someone just because they are angry.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 16:24
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, you do support a businesses right to make their own rules on their property, correct?    So, Walmart can throw you out of their store, or surveil you if they want, and I assume you'd support their right to do so.  Private business. 

So what if TSA were gone, and private airlines concluded they need/want to pat down people who come onto their business property....the plane.  They should be allowed to do it? 


Seems like that would make the most sense - you could have airlines with aggressive procedures that cater to passengers who don't mind privacy matters/scans/patdowns, and airlines that have more respect for passenger privacy and less aggressive procedures.  The problem now is that there are TSA regulations that are mandated by federal law, irregardless of who is in charge of security (federal agents vs. private contractors), so you can't really get the true choice ("free market") anyway.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 20 2010 at 16:28
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


What if the shop is a gas station? When is the last time someone blew up a gas station by firing their perfectly legal gun into the tanks? It just doesn't happen in real life, I don't know why you assume it would happen on planes more than anywhere else.
 
 
Gosh silly me!  Or an explosives shop maybe.  Yes this doesn't happen (Often) in real life.  My concern is that (See above) people tend to lose it on planes its called 'Air-rage' or something like that, not just terrorists tha knows.  Although there are terrorists too.  My assumption that it would happen more on planes is well, just an assumption in your head. 
 
I do think that we need to get the Terrorist bit into perspective mind..  Many more people die on hte roads every day and people accept it as part of life (Or death).


People have road rage too and its legal to carry guns in cars, but you don't see people shooting each other on roads left and right.  I think you overestimate how willing people are to shoot someone just because they are angry.
 
I guess we'll only really find out if we have a trial run.  Like Equality says you can have different companies with different rules some guns some no guns.  Then you takes yer choice.  Of course if you're wrong whoever's house the plane lands on will be well pissed off as they didn't have a choice.
 
In the end I am being truly British, I don't like people carrying guns especially near me and even more so in an environment that I cannot escape.
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 01:04
I understand being uncomfortable around guns, my dad is a gun nut and I still am not a fan, but an "air rage"-induced massacre is obviously silly, be reasonable here. Also, Mythbusters showed that it's not possible to blow up a car by shooting its gas tank. Although, to be fair llama, you can't legally drink in a car while you can in a plane. Should you be able to drink and carry in a plane? That is a reasonable concern, and I wouldn't want anyone intoxicated to have a gun around me in a plane, especially since the altitude increases the effect of alcohol.

Honestly Finnforest, I think the airport security before 9/11 was just fine go back to that, and the Republicans can spit nonsense about "a pre-9/11 mentality" all they want. 9/11 isn't going to happen again with knives: the passengers know to resist, and the cockpit doors are reinforced and can't be opened anymore. We should be spending less money on the slight chance of another terrorist attack and more on the 11 times as many people who are killed, just as senselessly, every year on the highways. I don't see how the malice of 9/11 makes the death any worse than being killed by somebody who was texting (or even being killed by someone in an unavoidable accident). But of course terrorism is big and symbolic, so our stupid, emotional brain focuses on that instead.

Anyway, we're not getting any help from Obama on this one. AND I VOTED FOR YOU IN THE PRIMARY YOU JERK!


Edited by Henry Plainview - November 21 2010 at 01:07
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 08:46
I support gun toting drunks on a plane as long as it has snakes.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 09:12
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

I understand being uncomfortable around guns, my dad is a gun nut and I still am not a fan, but an "air rage"-induced massacre is obviously silly, be reasonable here. Also, Mythbusters showed that it's not possible to blow up a car by shooting its gas tank. Although, to be fair llama, you can't legally drink in a car while you can in a plane. Should you be able to drink and carry in a plane? That is a reasonable concern, and I wouldn't want anyone intoxicated to have a gun around me in a plane, especially since the altitude increases the effect of alcohol.

Honestly Finnforest, I think the airport security before 9/11 was just fine go back to that, and the Republicans can spit nonsense about "a pre-9/11 mentality" all they want. 9/11 isn't going to happen again with knives: the passengers know to resist, and the cockpit doors are reinforced and can't be opened anymore. We should be spending less money on the slight chance of another terrorist attack and more on the 11 times as many people who are killed, just as senselessly, every year on the highways. I don't see how the malice of 9/11 makes the death any worse than being killed by somebody who was texting (or even being killed by someone in an unavoidable accident). But of course terrorism is big and symbolic, so our stupid, emotional brain focuses on that instead.

Anyway, we're not getting any help from Obama on this one. AND I VOTED FOR YOU IN THE PRIMARY YOU JERK!


Well said, Henry. Yeah, you can drink on a plane, but they cut you off before you get obnoxiously drunk, at least, so I don't see it as such a big issue. You're right about 9/11 not happening again. That's the thing people can't seem to grasp: there's no way passengers would allow any sort of hijacking to take place now that we know what their intentions are. The only air related incidents we've had since then have involved attempted bombings, and these full body scanners don't detect explosives any better than a metal detector does. The next time terrorists want to give us a scare, they will do it in a completely unexpected way.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 10:54
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

Pat, you do support a businesses right to make their own rules on their property, correct?    So, Walmart can throw you out of their store, or surveil you if they want, and I assume you'd support their right to do so.  Private business. 

So what if TSA were gone, and private airlines concluded they need/want to pat down people who come onto their business property....the plane.  They should be allowed to do it? 

Of course they should. I've said that numerous times I think. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 10:55
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

 
Not really.  If you fire a gun somewhere - lets say a shop - it is unlikely the whole shop is going up in flames (Or down).   It only takes one missplaced bullet on a plane to potentially bring it down.  Someone might get nervous about the behaviour of another passenger and get a gun out.  THere are plenty of cases of people losing it on planes -- but they normally don't have a AK - 47 on them.  No planning involved.  
 
I hate gum.  A flame thrower?  Tank?


What if the shop is a gas station? When is the last time someone blew up a gas station by firing their perfectly legal gun into the tanks? It just doesn't happen in real life, I don't know why you assume it would happen on planes more than anywhere else.
 
 
Gosh silly me!  Or an explosives shop maybe.  Yes this doesn't happen (Often) in real life.  My concern is that (See above) people tend to lose it on planes its called 'Air-rage' or something like that, not just terrorists tha knows.  Although there are terrorists too.  My assumption that it would happen more on planes is well, just an assumption in your head. 
 
I do think that we need to get the Terrorist bit into perspective mind..  Many more people die on hte roads every day and people accept it as part of life (Or death).


People have road rage too and its legal to carry guns in cars, but you don't see people shooting each other on roads left and right.  I think you overestimate how willing people are to shoot someone just because they are angry.
 
I guess we'll only really find out if we have a trial run.  Like Equality says you can have different companies with different rules some guns some no guns.  Then you takes yer choice.  Of course if you're wrong whoever's house the plane lands on will be well pissed off as they didn't have a choice.
 
In the end I am being truly British, I don't like people carrying guns especially near me and even more so in an environment that I cannot escape.

Then that person can bring the company to court and try to seek some compensation.

I think llama responded to everything for me. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 11:02
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

I understand being uncomfortable around guns, my dad is a gun nut and I still am not a fan, but an "air rage"-induced massacre is obviously silly, be reasonable here. Also, Mythbusters showed that it's not possible to blow up a car by shooting its gas tank. Although, to be fair llama, you can't legally drink in a car while you can in a plane. Should you be able to drink and carry in a plane? That is a reasonable concern, and I wouldn't want anyone intoxicated to have a gun around me in a plane, especially since the altitude increases the effect of alcohol.

Honestly Finnforest, I think the airport security before 9/11 was just fine go back to that, and the Republicans can spit nonsense about "a pre-9/11 mentality" all they want. 9/11 isn't going to happen again with knives: the passengers know to resist, and the cockpit doors are reinforced and can't be opened anymore. We should be spending less money on the slight chance of another terrorist attack and more on the 11 times as many people who are killed, just as senselessly, every year on the highways. I don't see how the malice of 9/11 makes the death any worse than being killed by somebody who was texting (or even being killed by someone in an unavoidable accident). But of course terrorism is big and symbolic, so our stupid, emotional brain focuses on that instead.

Anyway, we're not getting any help from Obama on this one. AND I VOTED FOR YOU IN THE PRIMARY YOU JERK!

Completely agree with you.

On the Obama thing, you have to realize democrats don't give a sh*t about civil rights. Nor do Republicans.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 11:04

TSA forces a 12 year old boy to take his shirt of and receive a pat down, despite not even setting off the metal detector.

I feel so safe. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2010 at 11:51
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


On the Obama thing, you have to realize democrats don't give a sh*t about civil rights. Nor do Republicans.
 
 
Need any supporting evidence:
 
Both Republican and Democrats want to control aspects of our lives and every now and then they will combine forces completely to screw us all over.  If this passes, and is upheld by the courts, then we will be looking at a new "War on Drugs" (what a glorious success that has been).


Time always wins.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 249250251252253 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.613 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.