Thread: What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

Originally Posted by Whovian

PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.

The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.

Your 9th amendment argument sucks.

It's not the airlines that have nudie booths at the airport. It's the federal government.

Originally Posted by Coronado

I don't know why I bother trying to explain anything to you. All that ever happens is you end up totally misinterpreting what I've said, go off on some idiotic tangeant based upon that, then end up with some smartass remark. It's a total waste of effort to hold on any sort of conversation with you that would actually require any sort of neural activity on your part, I guess.

Oh well. Carry on without me, dearie.

....................

Originally Posted by Tashah

The El Al airport procedures and in-flight safeguards work for me.

In addition, all El Al passenger aircraft are equipped with an anti-missile system.

They have two guards onboard armed with machine guns. El Al doesn't play.

Originally Posted by Whovian

Tell you what Cor... next time the TSA fails to stop a shoe or underwear bomber on your flight & they go BOOM... come back and tell us how it was their right to fly unimpeded by the TSA.

Well the underwear bomber was let onto the plane by the government :0
The Underwear Bomber: More to the story Kurt Haskell describes The Well Dressed Man and the Man in Orange | The Liberty Voice

Gravity.

Originally Posted by spud_meister

Gravity.

Smartass...

Originally Posted by Coronado

Non-responsive answer, but basically what you are saying is you really only have the rights the state decides you have, the Constitution be damned.

Where in ANY of my posts gives you the slightest impression that I said such a thing? You are the one claiming that you have a right to fly on a plane. I want you to prove it. I gave you a way to prove it. Use it. You are the one that is claiming a right where none exists.

Originally Posted by Coronado

Interesting. Sad, but interesting. So what would you do if Congress passed a law saying you could no longer drive a car or use any sort of public transportation? Since you seem to think you have no such right, you'd just shrug and accept it, making smartass remarks to the non-subservient who dare to complain along the way?

Congress does have that ability. Sure I'd be pissed that they took away my license. But guess what.....people have lived on this world for thousands of years long before the car was invented. How do you think they got around? Ask any cop or judge or lawyer in this whole country and they will ALL tell you that driving is a privledge, not a right.

Originally Posted by Kandahar

What's your point? Do you think you're going to prevent all terrorist attacks everywhere in the country through ridiculous airport security? What's to stop them from blowing up a metro instead where there's no security, or just blowing themselves up while they're waiting to be checked in the security line at an airport?

Have you not been reading my posts? I have already stated that we cannot prevent all terrorist attacks. What one man builds another can tear down. One of my favorite sayings. In any case as I have already stated...Just because they can always find a way around security measures does not mean that we give up and stop trying to stop find better ways to stop them.

Originally Posted by Kandahar

See, here's the problem with this. If we want to deter murder in general, we have a lot of cops on duty to deter murder, rather than staking out a specific place where the LAST murder occurred. But if we want to deter terrorism in general, we have ridiculous devices that deter a SPECIFIC KIND of terrorism (e.g. smuggling explosives in your underwear) in a SPECIFIC PLACE (e.g. behind the secured line at an airport). Do you really not see the silliness of that? What do you think a terrorist is more concerned with - killing as many people and causing as much carnage as possible, or the specific method and place through which he does it?

Actually as I am sure that you know airport security and the measures taken there are just ONE of the ways that is used to stop terrorism. They also have detectives that go out in search of them, just like regular cops go out to find murderers. With that being the case then of course it isn't silly.

As for what a terrorist is more concerned with, the place of their activity or the carnage they cause, the answer is both are equally important to them. Do you really think that the 9/11 hijackers picked the twin towers and the Pentagon out of thin air?

Originally Posted by Kandahar

This does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deter terrorism in general. It just deters terrorists from loading their underwear with explosives and trying to go through security at an airport. And even THAT isn't a problem that needs deterring, as it's happened a grand total of ONE TIME in the history of air transportation.

One time? Or are you just saying one time for a group that did us damage? Because there is a BIG difference between that and the amount of hijackings that are committed.

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Nope. You're using public airwaves, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to listen in to every phone call you make?



If it's owned by the state and you don't have a right explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to be in a library, why shouldn't the government be allowed to monitor every book you read?



So then you're OK with Minority Report-style sensors being installed in every nook and cranny of sidewalks and streetlights so that the government can keep tabs on you at all times while you're outside?



Since you don't have a right to drive, just like you don't have a right to fly, would you be OK with the government installing a GPS on your automobile without a warrant?



But you don't have a right to surgery, so you're OK if the government mandates that a GPS chip be implanted in your skin whenever you get surgery? You'll be free to remove it at any time, as soon as you get home if you like. Best of luck!

The rest of your post is nothing more than fear mongering. Not worth responding to as both you and I know that none if it will ever come to pass. If it did pass in congress you would be 100% certain that those particular politicians would be voted out ASAP. And politicians are too greedy to want that to happen.

Originally Posted by Coronado

So how exactly do you Constitutional scholars interpret the Ninth Amendment? I'd love to hear you weigh in on it.

While I'm not scholor it is pretty obvious what the Ninth Amendment means. Now, Can you draw up a list of rights that are not in the constitution and yet we are gaurunteed to have because of the 9th Amendment? Just what are those rights? Anything that you say? Or anything the people as a whole say? What are they? I would like the full list please and thank you.

Also answer me this. Since you seem to think that the 9th amendment is the end all be all for law making why is it that we have a congress which has the power to make laws? Surely since you seem to think that the 9th amendment applies to everything that was not talked about in the Constitution (including flying which by the way was never even thought of when the Constitution was first made and therefore could not be considered when making the constitution) you can answer me this.

As I have stated before, every amendment in the Constitution has it's exceptions.

Originally Posted by Whovian

PUBLIC transportation, if available, is a right.
PRIVATE transportation, such as your own car, is a right.

Sorry but this is incorrect. The constitution states in Article I Section 8 that the government must provide post offices and roads for the post office...exact wording is...

"To establish post offices and post roads;"

They just have to make roads for the post office and thats it.There is no where in there that states that the government must provide roads for the common people to travel on. But since the government does provide the roads for the common people they can have a say in who can drive on them and who cannot drive on them. There is also no where in the Constitution that states that the government must provide public transportation. They do so as a service. They are free to stop that service at any time. And free to reject someone from that service at any time also.

Now there is nothing saying that you can't own a car. And there is nothing saying that you cannot drive it on your own property. That is as far as it goes for your right to drive. Beyond the borders of your property you have no right to drive.

Originally Posted by Whovian

PRIVATE transportation, such as an airplane you do not own, is NOT a right.

The 9th amendment does not guarantee me the right to fly on any plane I want, if the owner of that plane doesn't want me there. It is not illegal nor un constitutional for me, as an airline, to refuse to allow you to board my plane, unless you're a member of a 'protected' class.

Your 9th amendment argument sucks.

The rest of your arguement however is spot on.