What if we had no air security checks?

reply to post by elevatedone


Keep on Believing that , and sooner or later you will wind up in a FEMA Camp being told by your Masters to Eat Dirt and Liking it ............

People would be slightly leary of getting on a plane, however you wouldn't feel humilatiated once
you made that choice and got to sit down with your jam souvineer and diet coke.

reply to post by elevatedone


You are completely right. Before the 9/11 attack there was no security in airports at all. Now that we have security we'd better like it!

If anyone thinks TSA can stop a determined terrorist than they are mislead. It is all for show. They have only caught retarded terrorists. Where there is a will there is a way. Fake bombs make it on the planes right under their noses. TSA is not protecting you, the troops are not protecting you, and the laws, they just get bypassed.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

You are right, no where in the Constitution does it say everyone as the right to own a gun. What it does say is that the government has no right restricting the keeping and bearing of arms by the people. The Constitution doesn't give any citizen rights, it gives the government rights, and if the government isn't specifically given a right in the Constitution that right is reserved for the the people.

/you can now return to your previously scheduled discourse.
//some thing have to be said wherever it is found
///slashies

reply to post by captaintyinknots


"As long as they have a permit"

Requiring a permit to carry a gun is infringing on that shall not be infringed part of the 2A

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Thats where you're wrong.

I fully - 100 % support the New World Order, I can't wait for it to be in place.

No Fema camps for me, those will be for the ones who resist.

Originally posted by elevatedone
No Fema camps for me, those will be for the ones who resist.

Oh yeah. You did so well with resisting ATS.



You may be close to the mark though. This invasion of privacy may be a precursor so that the PTB see how much the populous will take.

reply to elevatedone


I think it's probably a bit of both... as technology improves, so will the proposed security techniques and the "upgrade" from metal detectors to body scanners is the present example, not to mention the changing face of "threat" and the Govt's attempt to protect the public from it.

However, I also believe that a very big part of this stage is the illusion of security the Govt is painting for the public. I really feel that it's so much to do with this current TSA controversy. The body scanners have been in place in certain airports for awhile, but the enhanced pat-downs start in Oct. of this year? It makes sense if one believes that if a strong enough illusion is presented, not only will the public fall for it and accept it, but those who are involved in the staging (i.e. the money behind the machine) benefits (by profit).. win/win, right?

Consider:

We've all heard the story about the invisible prison? There's many variations but the gist is this: Put a guard in a station in the middle of a room and make it impossible for the "inmates" to tell whether the guard is actually there watching (two way, mirrored glass) in the beginning the guard is always on duty and there are consequences for escape or breaking the rules, but eventually - the "inmates" will change their behavior to account for this to the point that the guard need not be there at all, and the "inmates" will do as they were taught. Conditioning.

That is the question that faces us now. With the ever increasing security and ever increasing laws/regulations governing our everyday life. Is it conditioning, if so for what? and are we safer now, then we were before?

I'm not sure what i find more concerning, people thinking we'd be safe with no security checks at airports, or people who think they could happily fire a gun in an aeroplane and everything would be ok?

Type of weapon and round used could make a difference too. You don't want just anyone blasting away with a hand cannon in a cabin.

A few sessions on the range does not qualify someone as an air marshall.

CX.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
However, I also believe that a very big part of this stage is the illusion of security the Govt is painting for the public.

Define illusion. A bullet-proof vest is essentially an illusion of greater safety, because you can still get shot in the head. So is tank armor or antibiotics (which also fail). Condoms break. Is that a good enough reason to not use them?

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to elevatedone

 

I think it's probably a bit of both... as technology improves, so will the proposed security techniques and the "upgrade" from metal detectors to body scanners is the present example, not to mention the changing face of "threat" and the Govt's attempt to protect the public from it.

Eventually the technology will get to the point where security will be pretty much invisible. It's only a matter of scale, and programming to scan a whole crowd instead of individuals. Software could highlight individuals with concealed objects that meet a certain criteria.