As I said, I'm dropping the whole section about rebellion that I typed prior. I am not admitting I am wrong, just following through with my promise on that matter.
Which returns us to your motive here. Something they cannot stomach warrants what? A rebellion? You see where you're going here? This is why Saltin didn't provide a response to satisfy your questions, because you're asking him to indicate what would motivate him to rebel against the U.S., with the mere advocacy of such being a crime in the U.S.. So, drop this tangent.
No, something you can't stomach would be the point that you START protesting, through legal means, whether picketing, writing letters, running for office. I wanted to know, and still quite well DO want to know what is too much for him. At what point would he start protesting against the governments involvement. What security matter is too much for him. The extreme was just that, the most extreme point to take it, not the first jump.
\
As I said, I personally already feel like it's too much, however, I have absolutely zero intent to take up arms against the government.
Let me clarify that "if" something is detected via xray machines, metal detectors, explosive residue sniffers, or trained dogs, do you think they'll just drop the subject? No, of course not, they'll do a more invasive investigation.
I think should one of those matters get tripped, that it would provide probable cause for further search.
Also, one quick point I want to interject directly on the AIT machines is the claim that they don't save the images... I find that hard to swallow as how else would they use images as evidence to prove they saw something? If nothing else, I get the feeling they're stretching the truth and really probably mean something along the lines of "Not every image is saved, and it can only be saved at the discretion of the operator."
By the measure of your arguments, the image scanners are ALSO passive systems (I would tend to argue that anything emitting anything isn't passive and, as such, would contend that x-ray, metal detection, and residue sniffers are not passive, but whatever).
Metal detectors don't cause you to stop and hold your arms up. The sniffers can be used in ways that are passive. The X-ray, like I said, are iffy. You're right however, the fact that they emit anything does make them a bit more on the active end of the spectrum. My point however is that they aren't a step that requires you to stop in place, and wait while it scans your whole body. The X-rays only require stopping due to the extra requirements of pulling certain things out and putting them in trays now, otherwise you could toss your bags on the belt, and walk forward. It might not be truly passive, however, it's not quite as active of a scan as the AIT machines I'd say.
What I would also like to contend is, your argument is sounding a helluva lot like lspiderl's argument, in that he was arguing the image scanners are invasive, intruding upon ones person and showing private parts, and yet I already provided images that show they DO NOT. Are you then going to give the same ridiculous argument lspiderl presented, which is that we can't trust TSA when it comes to their claim, and presentation of evidence, that they installed a privacy protocol to ensure no "privates" are displayed?
Because if you're going to argue that paranoid lunacy, we're done with this discussion.
Honestly, I never trust a government agency until proven otherwise. However, my argument doesn't center on conspiracy or lunacy, but rather on the fact that I feel it violates my rights, rights that are laid down as law in the Constitution I'll add once more. I'm unsure on just how detailed the images are. I don't fully trust the fact they can't save the image, but honestly, I don't think that they'd be worth ogling even if you could, at least not with the plethora of porn out there, and those really are the only two arguments of spider's that I remember.
No, it's a means to an end, not the main goal. If you fail to recognize the motivations for their actions you will merely see, and respond to, the superficial results.
Alright, fine, you'd be right there, the terror IS a means to an end. However, commerce would be more easily effected by making consumers too terrified to shop also at this point, which comes back to the walmart point, note here that walmart is being used to refer to any major store, not literally JUST walmart.
However the means IS through terror, and hence they attempt to create terror. Whether its the means to the end, or the end goal, its their critical step.
If that were their only agenda, the best targets would be arenas/stadiums. However, the greater agenda is commerce/industry disruption, as those have a greater impact on a governing nation and would result in a larger chance for a nation (such as the U.S.) to review their actions, cease and desist.
Arenas and stadiums, especially during extremely large events have extremely beefed up security now for a reason.
As far as causing a government to stop and consider its actions, I think ANY large amount of deaths would have the same effect, not just targeting commerce and industry. If thousands of US citizens were dieing in domestic terrorist attacks a day, it would have a similar result to economic impacts.
Such is the case with Al Qaeida, in that their agenda was/is to encourage the U.S. to remove their military bases from the Middle East (specifically, Saudi Arabia).
And the U.S. is responsible for the security of its citizens, the airline industry is responsible for the security of its passengers, the taco stand guy is responsible for ensuring the quality of the food he provides you. What's your point?
If the US is responsible for the security of its citizens, why don't the police have a duty to protect individual citizens? The US government is responsible for many things, including the security of the NATION. However, they are NOT responsible for your security, nor mine. My point therefore is, that, as the government is NOT responsible for my protection, I don't like the fact that I am required to submit to security theater, that won't stop a terrorist that wants to get aboard that plane anyways, and that I surrender my 4th Amendment rights in the process.
(Gov't not responsible for our protection, Warren Vs District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1; 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 412)
Wow, you really missed the boat, didn't you? No, I was addressing the fact that you think these are freedoms, when in fact there are no actual freedoms, only permissions.
Thats a rather pessimistic view honestly. Freedoms exist as long as the people are willing to demand them, just because the government can take them away, doesn't make them any less real, just more difficult to hold on to. They ARE freedoms, and they are provided for by LAW, even if you don't believe they are innate.
And, once again, missed the boat. While the "ideal" of freedom is not an illusion (just non-existent under virtually any governance), what you presently deem as freedoms is an illusion.
Just because they've been denied and taken away, doesn't make them an illusion, I am fully aware of how my freedoms are lacking under the US government, I don't believe I have anymore than what I actually do have. However, I am arguing to curtail the actions that are taking MORE freedom away, and hopefully, some day, we'll have a congress that actually starts to return freedoms that have been taken away.
Two problems with this argument: One is you are claiming the government isn't obeying the law in this case (image scanners). You have not proven this argument, therefore it is mere hyperbole.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Have warrants been issued to search my person of effects when I go to the airport?
As far as saying it IS reasonable, in Katz Vs United States (389 U.S. 347) The Supreme Court determined that a search occurs when a person expects privacy, and society thinks that said expectation is reasonable... Unfortunately, whether society thinks these searches are reasonable is still up in the air.
The other is that you state every citizen in this country should hold onto the same hyperbole as you, and come to the same unsubstantiated conclusion. Well gee, I don't agree with that hyperbole because I bothered to research the issue and examined the available evidence. Thus, I came to a substantiated conclusion which, unfortunately for you, doesn't coincide with yours. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that many others have likewise examined the available evidence and come to a nonconforming conclusion.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, however I feel my point of view is correct (Doesn't everyone?) And therefore I want the majority to agree with me. My points are no less valid than yours. I've seen the various images that have been released, and read the articles from both sides. I've come to the conclusion that the scanners and patdowns violate the 4th Amendment. Disagree if you wish, that's your right to do so, however it doesn't make my opinion any less valid than your own.
As for conforming, honestly, I know about the tea party, but don't follow it, nor consider myself a member of it. Just because my opinion might coincide with theirs, doesn't mean I'm conforming to them. I'm sure other opinions I hold are different from theirs, just as I'm sure you hold opinions of your own that align with some organizations.
And yes, I am saying you're a conformist, in that you're running with the crowd of tea party evangelists, finding wrongs where there are none, propagating lies where it suits, and following blindly the fabricated conclusions pushed by so many conspiracy theorists. Being a nonconformist, in this day and age, is actually making the damn effort to find the facts, rather than taking everything that's handed to you. Because, in this day and age, there's a pound of propaganda and only an ounce of truth. And the only way to get to that truth, is through examination of the facts. And those facts aren't going to be handed out to you so readily, unlike that pound of propaganda in the form of false allegations, fake photos, and unsubstantiated anecdotes.
Where have I lied? What have I presented as a lie? Almost everything I've stated is an opinion. My wording may not have been the best, calling Xrays and Metal detectors passive security, but, I have not at any point intentionally and knowingly lied. Should I find a lie in anything I said, I apologize for it, and ask you to point it out. Just because I haven't come to the same conclusions as you however, doesn't make a statement a lie.
I covered the tea party above, and as for finding wrongs where there are none? That depends on personal opinion once more. YOU might not find the AIT scanners to be a wrong, that doesn't mean to me they aren't however. I also haven't stated anything on those photos, cited any of the quotes against the scanners, or made any allegations. I've given my opinion that it violates the 4th amendment, and why I feel that way, along with responding to your points.
At which point you'll end up either shooting your foot, shooting your friend, or have the weapon taken from you and have yourself shot by it.
I've made it 12 years handling firearms safely, I don't foresee me putting it in a holster being the point I mess up.
I've been raised with firearms, and respect them for what they are.
Do yourself a favor and take the courses, but don't carry the gun. Not unless you're an expert which, at 21 and still having not taken any courses, you're clearly not. And don't take this personally, I have an extensive background in combat-related studies and am posing expert advice. You touch upon something here that deserves a degree of credibility on my part, so it's a bit out of character for me to toss out creds, but in this case it's warranted.
I don't intend on waiting to be deemed an 'expert'. However I feel having been raised with guns, and given instruction by a US Marine in the safe use of firearms, and taught proper respect and safety WITH firearms, along with having a decent value of my life and those around me, that I can safely carry the firearm.
It is exceedingly unlikely a gun will protect you from a violent crime. Instead, it will only provide you the opportunity to escalate a crime into becoming violent or provide an opportunity for your weapon to end up in the hands of a criminal. A single course, even a series of courses, will not prepare you for a violent altercation, nor will you be able to utilize your gun effectively. Your responses will be dramatically altered by adrenalin, the weapon will be holstered, inside your clothing, and on safety. A gun will not save your life, but poor judgment on your part could very well ruin it. Carrying a gun is not a means of self-protection, it's an opportunity to play hero, which will more than likely result in either your death, a hostage situation, or your imprisonment.
In the event of a violent crime, no matter HOW small the chance the gun can help, I'd rather have some form of defense other than crying out for help. Should the crime not begin as violent, I won't have cause to use the firearm. The firearm is there should I be in fear for my life, if I can't articulate a fear that the encounter could end in either my death, or the death of a non-criminal participant, then I can't morally, or legally, use that firearm.
As far as it serving as a means of playing hero? Maybe to someone delusional, however for me it will serve solely as a means of defending my life should I need it. I'm not here to stop every crime, or ANY crime really. That gun will be on my hip ONLY to protect the lives of myself and those I care for.
Oh wow, you are so incredibly wrong. You do realize that a single bullet, from any one of those wannabe heroes, penetrating the hull at 30,000 feet would kill everyone on that plane even before it hits the ground, right?
Actually, from what I've heard, a modern plane will not complete be destroyed by a bullet hole. If you're referring to explosive decompression, any ways, otherwise that'd be one HUGE handgun...
Heck, you realize the US Military uses pressurized aircraft, including bombers, right?
For further reading on that...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481
Woot, good job! You just provided terrorists 27,000 new ways to obtain a gun on a plane. Or didn't you consider that flight attendants have family that could be compromised, kidnapped, held in hostage? Or perhaps Osama himself could become a flight attendant. Worse is, a flight attendant can easily be knocked unconscious, or their weapon taken from them as they pass through the cramp aisles.
And the same could be said about the pilots, and the baggage handlers, and the TSA agents. EVERYONE pretty much has families that can be kidnapped and held hostage and used as leverage. And like I said before, if a terrorist really wants to get to the plane, they can stick a bomb up their butt.
ANY security measure has its flaws. At least having an armed person on the plane allows a response beyond bum rushing the terrorist if they try to hijack the plane if they get something through.
A 4 day course and arming is grossly insufficient. Far more training is required, as well as background checks, routine security checks, etc and so on. Oversimplification will get people killed. It's simply too great a risk, too foolish a notion that creates more opportunities, not less.
I think we have the infrastructure quite well in place for those security checks, and the point is, thats one of the companys most 'advanced' classes, and its $2,000.00. Others are available for longer and more in-depth instruction. However, along the lines of the current security, the point is to provide DETERRENT, however its a deterrent that can ALSO pose to be a defense.
No, or did you forget they're trying to die in the cause of Allah? Be it a knife with a hostage, a bomb in the crotch, or a gun from a ditsy flight attendant, additional armed, poorly trained, flight attendants will provide absolutely nothing to this situation.
So, set up a way to train them even more effectively. We DO have that whole military thing where they train people to fight effectively already going on.
Nope, reading comprehension error. I am saying they don't impact your freedoms, specifically because you have none for it to impact. Please reread what I wrote earlier, as there's a hidden meaning in it.
I do have them to impact actually, whether YOU believe they exist or not.
And with that, it's been fun. I came here to toss in my two cents, and to have a bit of fun in a debate. I've come through it holding my beliefs still as strong as ever, and maybe someone reading my posts will stop and think for a minute about our governments security measures.
While I may disagree with you Hellstromm, I hope you've enjoyed the debate yourself, and wish you the best of luck in your current endeavors. This will (Probably) be my last post on this topic, though I'll read any replies and most likely continue to watch it.