• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still cant feel the point in these things.
I value life, but not that much :p
Nah, as many people said, this is pointless and just makes Osama and co. feel they are winning.
 
lordofthereef said:
People just like to argue in circles.....
Click to expand...

yes they do. your point doesn't work and not because flying is a necessity, because that is irrelevant to the point at hand. As has been pointed out probably 50 times so far in this thread, if you're driving your car they can't search you without probable cause because you chose to drive. Same thing. It doesn't matter if it's a necessity or not, or if it's something you choose to do. You DON'T give up your right by doing it. It would maybe be a little more arguable if these scanners actually worked well...
 
Bob Maxey said:
Absolutely true. I would fire someone that put my business at risk and refusing to do the job I hired them to do is a good reason to kick them to the curb. If he or she wont fly, then they wont get a fat check with my name on it. Just a nice blue slip of paper.

Bob Maxey
Click to expand...

And you would be well within your legal rights to do so.
 
He states that airports are private property. The government shouldn't have to pay for the tsa. The gov can't step on peoples rights but airports can as it's private property. It's the classic washington washing their hands clean of this. They are tired of hearing both sides from the people.

I say get rid of the tsa. Make the people happy about keeping their so called rights. Then when the terrorists hijacks a plane and you know they will. Then the people has nothing to say about it as in the end their 4th amendment rights wasn't violated. Lot of good you're rights are when your dead.


As far as a gun in the cockpit. It's more useless than the scanners in the airport. When it comes down to it most pilots won't be able to shoot another person. This has been seen in combat. Plus the terrorists will be using passengers as shields. So is the pilots suppose to shoot a passenger to kill a terrorist? As soon as the pilot opens that door he is dead.
 
Dark Jedi said:
He states that airports are private property. The government shouldn't have to pay for the tsa. The gov can't step on peoples rights but airports can as it's private property. It's the classic washington washing their hands clean of this. They are tired of hearing both sides from the people.

I say get rid of the tsa. Make the people happy about keeping their so called rights. Then when the terrorists hijacks a plane and you know they will. Then the people has nothing to say about it as in the end their 4th amendment rights wasn't violated. Lot of good you're rights are when your dead.


As far as a gun in the cockpit. It's more useless than the scanners in the airport. When it comes down to it most pilots won't be able to shoot another person. This has been seen in combat. Plus the terrorists will be using passengers as shields. So is the pilots suppose to shoot a passenger to kill a terrorist? As soon as the pilot opens that door he is dead.
Click to expand...

1. Airports aren't private property. In the majority of cases they're funded by state, local and federal funds.

2. No one on here has said to get rid of the TSA. Everyone has said that we need competent screeners and effective security measures. Currently, we have neither.

3. Where has it been seen in combat that people who are trained to use a gun won't do it? I'm not familiar with that. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall seeing it.
 
Well if people has problems with the scanners and pat downs. Then how else can they check passengers?

All the training in the world don't mean squat until you get in a real world situation where you have to kill another person. Remember saying and doing are two different things and training you know it's not real and you are always safe.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Well if people has problems with the scanners and pat downs. Then how else can they check passengers?
Click to expand...

If you'll read the thread, you'll find numerous suggestions from several different posters. It's erroneous to say that the only way to screen people is with body scanners and pat downs. There are lots of other ways.

All the training in the world don't mean squat until you get in a real world situation where you have to kill another person. Remember saying and doing are two different things and training you know it's not real and you are always safe.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you've never been in a situation like that. It's been proven that in stressful situations, training kicks in automatically for people who have been trained properly. If you're trained in CPR for instance and you see someone who passes out on the ground, you don't sit there and go, "omg!!! omg!!!! omg!!!" and watch while the guy dies. If you're properly trained, you just react. If you hesitate, then you haven't been trained right.
 
A.Nonymous said:
1. Airports aren't private property. In the majority of cases they're funded by state, local and federal funds.

2. No one on here has said to get rid of the TSA. Everyone has said that we need competent screeners and effective security measures. Currently, we have neither.

3. Where has it been seen in combat that people who are trained to use a gun won't do it? I'm not familiar with that. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall seeing it.
Click to expand...

Airports are private property.
 
Dark Jedi said:
He states that airports are private property. The government shouldn't have to pay for the tsa. The gov can't step on peoples rights but airports can as it's private property. It's the classic washington washing their hands clean of this. They are tired of hearing both sides from the people.
Click to expand...

Neither the government nor owners of private property can step on your rights. Period.

However, Airports (especially larger ones) are owned by the local Government (i.e. The City of Los Angeles Owns LAX).

Dark Jedi said:
I say get rid of the tsa. Make the people happy about keeping their so called rights. Then when the terrorists hijacks a plane and you know they will. Then the people has nothing to say about it as in the end their 4th amendment rights wasn't violated. Lot of good you're rights are when your dead.
Click to expand...

Right, because if we don't want to have police violating our rights, we should just do away with the police until people get upset by the rise in violence?

That's the smart answer to the debate.

How about, if you don't want Emergency Room doctors molesting young women, we just do away with Emergency Room doctors altogether. Then see how people like it when there are no doctors to handle emergencies.


Dark Jedi said:
As far as a gun in the cockpit. It's more useless than the scanners in the airport. When it comes down to it most pilots won't be able to shoot another person. This has been seen in combat. Plus the terrorists will be using passengers as shields. So is the pilots suppose to shoot a passenger to kill a terrorist? As soon as the pilot opens that door he is dead.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement for a couple of reasons.

1) The firearm in the cockpit is simply meant to stay in the cockpit. They aren't the air Marshals. The point of the firearm in the cockpit is for defense if a terrorist makes it into the cockpit somehow.

2) As has been stated, during intense situations, training kicks in. Whatever the type of combat, the training kicks in and the person just reacts. Yes, it is true that occasionally a person in combat will be too scared to act, but that's the exception, not the rule.
 
jgard said:
I don't think it's so cut and dry. It depends on the airport. Look at Heathrow - it's privately managed (I don't know who owns it) and the fact that they don't have enough de-icing fluid has caused thousands of passengers to be grounded by a pretty small amount of snow.
Click to expand...

Heathrow is not a US airport, so I really don't think that's a good example for this discussion.

However, Heathrow is owned and operated by BAA.
 
I checked to see if airports are public or private property. The data I gathered indicates the former. While there are smaller, privately funded and privately operated airports around the country, that seems to be the exception and not the rule. I looked up a few of the larger airports in the US:

O'Haire - Owned by city of Chicago
Denver airport - Owned/operated by the city/county of Denver.
LaGuardia - Owned by City of NY
JFK airport - Owned by City of NY
Atlanta Airport - Owned by City of Atlanta

Those are just the major airports I pulled up off the top of my head. They were built with public funds. They're owned by the cities they're built in and they're operated by local city/county agencies. How do any of them qualify as privately owned?
 
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
 
Crude said:
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Please clarify . . .

If you camped on my property, I might ask you to leave. Or perhaps you can stay if you are a decent sort. I would ask you to police your brass, put out your camp fires, pick up the trash, and leave the gate either open or closed, depending upon how you found it.

If you camped in certain areas, you would be asked and then told to leave.

Again, not sure what your point is, so clarify.

Bob Maxey
 
Crude said:
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Talk like that is what people like you gets shot for trespassing. You cannot set up camp on private land.
 
Crude said:
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
Click to expand...

1. I would tell you to leave.
2. If you refused, I would call the sheriff.
3. His deputy would tell you to leave.
4. If you didn't, he'd arrest you and take you to jail.

Now, if you tried to break into my house, I would call the sheriff *after* I had incapacitated you.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Please clarify . . .
Click to expand...

What he's trying to indicate is that he believes that if you are on his property, he can coerce you into stripping for him, and not be charged with sexual assault.

That's his belief anyway.

He believes that he can make a strip search and being photographed naked a requirement of you being on his property, then it's perfectly legal and your rights aren't violated.

It doesn't matter if you ARE 12. It's perfectly legal.
 
EarlyMon said:
Meanwhile, another forum's take on staff security -
TSA Investigates Pilot Who Exposed Security Flaws - Slashdot
Click to expand...

I read this incident. Apparently, they showed up at his home with four marshalls and two local deputies. They took his firearm (which belongs to the TSA anyway), but they also took his California permit to carry, which was not granted by the TSA, or related to the TSA in any way.

With this in mind, remember that just this past month a teenager snuck into an Airport.

He approached an aircraft (Boeing 737) and climbed into the wheel well unnoticed. He died because of that.

With this in mind, an Iranian-American forgot that he had his Glock in his laptop case when he went to the airport. His firearm went through the security scanner. He was allowed to take the firearm with him onto the airplane and realized that he had it when he arrived at his hotel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The TSA has implemented these scanners. This has taken well over a year of planning. Let's look at what WASN'T done in the meantime.

They haven't done anything about the fact that 75% of firearms that pass through the X-Ray scanner get through.

They haven't done anything about the fact that you can just walk onto the Tarmac and plant a bomb on the aircraft.

And they just recently (after the scanners to scan US travelers were implemented) started screening passengers on US bound international flights against the terrorist watch lists.

TSA takes full control of passenger watch list checks | ATW Online

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You want proof that this is security theater?

This project was ahead of screening passengers on US bound international flights against the terrorist watch lists.

How is that possible? Who in their right minds would think that was a priority.
 
Crude said:
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
Click to expand...

no, i'm pretty sure if you were camped on my property, airports STILL wouldn't be privately owned ;) way to change your point when you were disproven though :p
 
Crude said:
yeah, third loop here, and the concept of private property is still not something people can grasp. Though I would love to set up camp on some of ya'll property and see how you handle it. You would see things my way in a hurry.
Click to expand...

I think I'm among the very few who saw the dark humor intended there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom