What if we had no air security checks?

I'm so sick and tired of the whole TSA / Security "pat down", "I've been violated", blah blah.

In this day and age there are rules and guidlines that MUST be followed to ensure safety. September 11th, 2001 changed the airline industry and now we have to live with the monster that was created.

If you have to or just want to fly, then there are just certain things that must be accepted. Airport security is needed and provided. Bags will get checked and re-checked. People are going to have to be frisked or searched. It's just going to happen.

Now, are there TSA agents abusing the authority they've been given? I'm sure there are, however we can't find fault with the entire system, can we? I mean it's like a bad cop, one doesn't make the entire police force bad.

I personally see it like this, If I'm going be flying, I may be asked to pass through an x-ray machine at security, if I don't want to be x-rayed, then I will be asked to let them "frisk" me. What's the big deal? Frisk me, I've nothing to hide and the less of a scene I make about it, the sooner it's over with and I'm on my way.

Again, yes I'm sure there are legit cases where someone was mistreated by Airport Security, but all in all, we need Airport security in this day and age.

That being said, I read this article today, found it pretty interesting and wanted to share.

As you are standing in an airport security line this Thanksgiving week, waiting to be funneled into one of the invasive new body-imaging machines, or, if you decline that, to be pulled aside and subjected to a way-too-personal pat-down, ask yourself how you would feel if you lived in a country like this:

You can walk into any airport, with or without a ticket, and wander unimpeded right up to a boarding gate. You don't have to surreptitiously slip past a security checkpoint, because there are no security checkpoints.

If you don't have a driver's license or a photo ID card with you, that doesn't matter; no one will request to see one.

If you are carrying a loaded gun in your pocket or underneath your jacket, no one will know. In fact, if you do have a valid ticket, there will be nothing to prevent you from boarding a flight while armed to the teeth with concealed weaponry.

The atmosphere at the airport is as free-and-easy as in a public park. The official assumption is that the people around you pose no threat; from the moment you walk through the front doors of the airport until the moment you step onto the plane, not a soul will stop you or ask you a question.

Would you feel safe? Would you want to live in such a country?

You did, if you were a citizen of the United States before the 1970s

CNN Article

Many times each day, in airports across the nation, people can be heard saying to others who are setting off on journeys of their own: "Where are you going?"

This year, in the airports that not so long ago in U.S. history were open and unfettered, we might ask ourselves a different question:

How did we get here?

The article is a long read, but well worth it in my opinion.

Thanks, Happy Holidays.

In other words, what woud life be like back in the 60s and 70s?

Seriously, the number of "terrorist" attacks has not decreased with any real level of significance since we locked out the terminals and only allowed ticketed passengers in.

I have no problem with metal detectors and baggage checks. But there MUST be a line in the sand. I for one draw it at irradiation of my body or military/police style friskings. I guess everyone has their limits and I would wonder what the limits would be for some of the "it's no big deal" people.

If no security checks were done, a number of things would happen:

- Liberties would still remain intact

- Flights would still be safe since the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are exponentially smaller than getting hit by lightning.

- The airline economy would show a slight improvement since more people would be willing to fly.

- Peoples bodies wouldnt take harmful doses of radiation.

The old "I've got nothing to hide adage" is roughly translated to "Hey government, do whatever you want to me, I believe you only want to make me safe, not violate my rights because I'm a big wussy".

Weighing the risks, eliminating security checks would be a good thing.

Explanation: S&F!

It's impossible to ensure security! Here is why...

The outside of the airports can't be effective secured at all and single scumbag with rpg7 and BOOM!

Hell!, if I'm wearing explosive underwear and I reach the TSA scanners/pat down area ... detonate it there and again BOOM! Don't even need to hop on the freaking plane!

The US should capitulate already as the 'terrorist's' already have you afraid of flying and now there is fear inside the airport itself! Game Over Man! Game Over! :shk:

Personal Disclosure: You can't protect yourself from law of the jungle! It underpins EVERYTHING!

if there was no security on the flights id bring my gun. if anyone tried anything funny. blam! one less terrorist for a .25 cent .45 cal round. no need for body scans or tsa groping.

now do i think we shouldnt do metal detectors or x ray bags? no that is fine but if we didnt i would not care either. plenty of people flew fine in the 60's and 70's. the fact that people use this line of resoning is absurd. if one of these TSA goons tried to touch my daughter like they are doing i would end up on my way to jail and he would need surgery on his nose.

as has been said before a COWARD dies a million deaths, but a BRAVE man dies one. i would rather die then subject myself to this garbage. plus you have a better chance of meeting a two headed unicorn, then meeting an actual terrorist.

and for all the COWARDS out there, just wait the next terrorist attack will be smuggled on board in someones anal cavity. then the tsa will want to do BUTT checks...ask yourself, will you bend over?

PROBABLY.

Ive said it before and I will say it again: You CANNOT stop someone who is willing to die for their cause. You simply cant. If not on planes, they'll do it in the lobby. If not in the lobby, it'll be at the mall.

These security measures are nothing but window dressing. They prevent NOTHING.

No security checks that would be good.
You maybe would be sitting next to me, I have a ccw permit.
I carry my handgun 95% of the time. It would not bother me a bit
to be on airplane with 30 people with firearms. As long as they had a permit
and back ground check. Their is no real differences between a air Marshall and
a citizen carry a firearm on a plane.

Originally posted by 19rn50
No security checks that would be good.
You maybe would be sitting next to me, I have a ccw permit.
I carry my handgun 95% of the time. It would not bother me a bit
to be on airplane with 30 people with firearms. As long as they had a permit
and back ground check. Their is no real differences between a air Marshall and
a citizen carry a firearm on a plane.

Please just stop right now.

You arent doing gunowners any favors .

As I mentioned in my thread from a couple of days ago.. This is what I believe in when it comes to fighting and dying for freedom. It doesn't mean running off to some foreign land and killing people who have no interest in me, myself, my friends, or my family... it means being willing to fight and even die to stop some mad lunatic from killing myself and the others around me.

Maybe the general populace has grown to fat and lazy to remember that.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


How so? A responsible gun owner carrying is not a negative thing.

There are ways to have a security system without violating the passengers dignity and potential their civil rights. Where the idea came from that we "give up" our rights in certain situations, I do not know. Certain rights are described as inalienable so that no person or organization can devise a way to strip us of them.

We were doing fine with metal detectors for a long time. Now people can find plastics to substitute in certain situations and explosives can be missed. So, we have devices that can detect trace amounts of chemicals in the air. Plastics and explosives give of chemicals.

They have already been using these devices to scan freight in shipping ports. They don't bust open every container and take it's contents out, they pass it by sophisticated scanners that "sniff" it for chemical and radioactive emissions.

It gets more dignified treatment than we do.

Ultimately, someone that wants to hurt us will just change his tactics. If we are immune to airport attacks, they will attack trains, or business buildings, or highways or schools or whatever they figure they can get too.

This is the "slippery slope" that is talked about. Once you set a precedent for this sort of invasion of privacy and suspension of rights, you open everything and everyone to a constantly building series of invasions under the very auspices I just described.

By agreeing to this draconian measures we are submitting to an infinite list of new government controlled aspects of our lives. We are screwing up really bad right now.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

How so? A responsible gun owner carrying is not a negative thing.

Thinking their is no difference between the average gun owner and air marshalls shows a lack of responsibility.

Have you gone through the amount and types of training they have? No, you havent.

As for getting a permit?



You want to ask permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Seriously?

Look, I understand that 9/11 has changed things but they didn't start doing this right after 9/11 either. Nothing has happened since then so why now? 9/11 was almost 10 years ago, 10 years is a LONG time, I was 9 when that happened, now at 19 I have to risk being harassed or getting cancer for something that happened 10 year ago?? No. Nobody is touching my Lion Jewels, and I'm not getting cancer.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


some states dont allow open carry. in those cases you can either break the law or get ccw permit. i have one.

id like to know why instead of spending billions on scanners and TSA welfare queens we dont just let pilots carry guns. you trust the guy to fly your plane but not carry a gun? if pilots had guns 9-11 would have never happend in the first place.

gun and locked door versus dude with boxcutter, wonder who wins?
nope better to not let pilots have guns and grope every person on the plane.
thats because this isnt about security. its about getting control of the cowards.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

I was laughing thinking about the wild west. Them stagecoaches with the
shot gum rider
I seen some not so good shooters in law enforcement to.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Explanation: S&F!

It's impossible to ensure security! Here is why...

The outside of the airports can't be effective secured at all and single scumbag with rpg7 and BOOM!

Hell!, if I'm wearing explosive underwear and I reach the TSA scanners/pat down area ... detonate it there and again BOOM! Don't even need to hop on the freaking plane!

The US should capitulate already as the 'terrorist's' already have you afraid of flying and now there is fear inside the airport itself! Game Over Man! Game Over! :shk:

Personal Disclosure: You can't protect yourself from law of the jungle! It underpins EVERYTHING!

Yes, sorry to say, OmegaLogos, but you are right. My own military training says no target is hard enough to just pass by, we can, and will take that target. I have seen weapons, like the RPGs you speak of, that can take down an aircraft in no time flat, from a ground position. How do you think those Arabs got to the Russians? RPGs and Stingers. There is no safe place, not even in the president's lap. Remember Dallas, 1963?

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

How so? A responsible gun owner carrying is not a negative thing.

Thinking their is no difference between the average gun owner and air marshalls shows a lack of responsibility.

Have you gone through the amount and types of training they have? No, you havent.

As for getting a permit?

You want to ask permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Seriously?

ugh. You missed the point. Point is, with a plane full of responsible gun owners, there is NO NEED for an armed marshall on the plane.

Also, you dont know what i do or what type of training i have. You know what they say about assumption being the mother of all f**k-ups?

As for carry permits, you're darn right people should have them. Nowhere in the constitution does it say everyone has a right to own a gun, so toss that garbage out the window. I'm not going to go any further into this, as I dont want to derail the OP.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Huh?

Did you read that before you posted it?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What is a permit? It is an infringement.

Also, you dont know what i do or what type of training i have.

I know you do not have the same training as an Air Marshal does. I also know your little certificate of completion from Front Sight, or any other school doesnt mean anything other than "thanks for showing up and paying us".

You know what they say about assumption being the mother of all f**k-ups

Yea, I've seen that Steven Seagal movie too.

Any original thoughts of your own, or would you like top continue spewing out lines from bad movies?

I am all for allowing armed citizens on planes, but saying there is no difference between the average civilian and an air marshal is just plain retarded.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
If no security checks were done, a number of things would happen:

...

- Flights would still be safe since the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are exponentially smaller than getting hit by lightning.

That's an upside-down argument -- the chances of a terrorist attack have been smaller for the very same reason that there is screening at the airports.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
If no security checks were done, a number of things would happen:

...

- Flights would still be safe since the chances of dying in a terrorist attack are exponentially smaller than getting hit by lightning.

That's an upside-down argument -- the chances of a terrorist attack have been smaller for the very same reason that there is screening at the airports.

Wrong.

The chances of getting hit by lightning are greater than dying in any terrorist attack, not just on a plane.