• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    59
I chose "other" because my choice was not on there....

Sex with a stewardess. :mrgreen:
 
If I'm selected for a strip search, I want to be searched by a female officer. I'll guarantee, that she'll find a weapon.:lamo
 
If I'm selected for a strip search, I want to be searched by a female officer. I'll guarantee, that she'll find a weapon.:lamo

Be careful. She might want to cut it off and send it to the evidence room. :mrgreen:
 
I voted for all of them and am fine with what they do as long as the procedure is laid out in some fashion. If people dont like it, dont fly. I find it so silly that people cry over this.

Has there been abuse, improper training etc? Yes of course name me something that doesn't have these things going on? Police, dentist, doctors, teachers, official men of religion, coaches, therapists etc etc etc

guess we should scrap all those things too lol
 
I voted for all of them and am fine with what they do as long as the procedure is laid out in some fashion. If people dont like it, dont fly.

Seeing how terrorist have used everything from bicycles to trains to blow up people you are not the least bit worried that this would set a precedent for other modes of transportation?


I find it so silly that people cry over this.

I find it disturbing for people to be accustomed to forking over their rights. These things are a blatant violation of the constitution.
 
Seeing how terrorist have used everything from bicycles to trains to blow up people you are not the least bit worried that this would set a precedent for other modes of transportation?




I find it disturbing for people to be accustomed to forking over their rights. These things are a blatant violation of the constitution.

hmm interesting, problem is when I go to the airport im not forking over any rights nor do they violate the constitution.
 
hmm interesting, problem is when I go to the airport im not forking over any rights nor do they violate the constitution.

You do not think being subjected to a strip search or a invasive pat down when you have not been arrested is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment?


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
 
You do not think being subjected to a strip search or a invasive pat down when you have not been arrested is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment?

nope because I could always not fly, pretty simple
if I want to fly I have to take the precaustions, the ones I know I have to take.

Standing in line knowing, volunteering and waiting for these things to happen isnt a blantant violation of anyting LOL

now if someone kicked in my door for no reason and forced these on me then yes that is in general a violation of many things, but the TSA is not because you can choose not to fly


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

and this means what they are secure, if you are gonna play sucj silly games with this verbaige then you could argue all saftey precasutions around the the country.

everyone knows this is going to happen at the airport so if they choose to fly they agree to it so there is no violation lol nothing is being forced
 
Are you serious?

No violation?

So if a cop says, "You need to be kicked in the balls to exit your home" for example, your choice to not go through it means it is not a rights violation to do so?

Centrist my ass.
 
Are you serious?

No violation?

So if a cop says, "You need to be kicked in the balls to exit your home" for example, your choice to not go through it means it is not a rights violation to do so?

Centrist my ass.

LMAO
what does YOUR example of leaving your house and you choosing to fly commercially?
oh thats right NOTHING :2rofll: that might be the dumbest, most worthless, irrelevant example I have ever seen.

its no violation
 
Last edited:
hmm interesting, problem is when I go to the airport im not forking over any rights nor do they violate the constitution.

Did you, as a taxpayer, provide more then 1 cent towards the building and / or operation of that airport??

LMAO
what does YOUR example of leaving your house and you choosing to fly commercially?
oh thats right NOTHING :2rofll: that might be the dumbest, most worthless, irrelevant example I have ever seen.

its no violation

What's the limit then?? How far before it becomes a 'violation'?? Do they have to MURDER people before it's a violation?? Or are you going to say that they can do that because it's 'your choice'...

Rights are NOT delineated by CHOICE.

You have the right to be secure in your PERSONS and your property against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, the metal detectors were SPECIFICALLY designed not to touch a person and setting off the alarm provided 'justification' for a further search, a quick pat-down / wand down. This was determined to be 'reasonable'...

Now, if you're talking in the sense that this hasn't been challenged constitutionally then you WOULD have a point, but that's not the point you're making... you're making the point that TSA goon squads are above the law. That's it that's all...and if you can't see that... well... god bless you.

The bottom line :
- Unwanted touch is assault.
- Unwanted touch over the clothes of the private areas is an arrestable misdemeanor.
- Unwanted touch UNDER the clothes is SEXUAL ASSAULT and under any normal circumstance would see the person charged and put in jail for 5-10 years + mandatory registration as a sex offender.

That's for everyone, including if you've gone through the 2 hour training session to be a TSA agent and got your plastic badge. A COP, is NOT allowed to touch anyone like that if there isn't very SPECIFC and VERY limited circumstances.

Also, any radiation is bad... these scanners are NOT enough to cause any damage from a single scan, BUT your REFUSAL to be put through that machine DOES NOT provide justification for the further search... that's been legal precedent forever.

A cop cannot walk up to you and say 'let me search your bags'... and you ask for probable cause to search and he tells you, well, your refusal to let me IS probable cause... THAT is unconstitutional.

I don't know what kind of banana republic you aspire to live in, but you should be ashamed to think of yourself as american if you honestly believe that people should succumb to harassment or worse in order to travel.

How about we just go right back 500 years and reinstate primae noctis?? Would that be freedom enough for your liking???

God I wish all you anti-american scum would just move to china or the koreas where you don't have these pesky rights... then EVERYONE would be happier.
 
Did you, as a taxpayer, provide more then 1 cent towards the building and / or operation of that airport??

yes I would imagine so as it should and as I see no impact to this



What's the limit then?? How far before it becomes a 'violation'?? Do they have to MURDER people before it's a violation?? Or are you going to say that they can do that because it's 'your choice'...

wow the "slippery slope" argument has this ever won a debate lol sorry you dont like it dont fly its pretty simple but for the ost part yes if you CHOOSE just about anything then your rights arent being violated. Thats just common sense.


Rights are NOT delineated by CHOICE.
actually they very well can be, so if i decline my right to a lawyer they give me one anyway?

You have the right to be secure in your PERSONS and your property against unreasonable search and seizure.
yes you do, but since its not forced and not your plane or property you will be taking your persons on, theres a threat that many lives could be lost and the people are at danger thats right is NOT being violated

Now, the metal detectors were SPECIFICALLY designed not to touch a person and setting off the alarm provided 'justification' for a further search, a quick pat-down / wand down. This was determined to be 'reasonable'...

yeaaaaa for metal detectors in which the people that run the plan have determined not enough by itself so MORE detection is needed and reasonable but like I said since you volunteer reasonable is out the window

Now, if you're talking in the sense that this hasn't been challenged constitutionally then you WOULD have a point, but that's not the point you're making... you're making the point that TSA goon squads are above the law. That's it that's all...and if you can't see that... well... god bless you.

no thats the point you are trying to make up to make yourself feel right about your wrong opinion
TSA is not above the law, they cant come to your house and force you to do anything but they do get to search you if YOU choose to fly

The bottom line :
- Unwanted touch is assault.
- Unwanted touch over the clothes of the private areas is an arrestable misdemeanor.
- Unwanted touch UNDER the clothes is SEXUAL ASSAULT and under any normal circumstance would see the person charged and put in jail for 5-10 years + mandatory registration as a sex offender.

what type of fantasy world do you live in? yes this is true when it is FORCED but it since it isnt you have no leg to stand on. its a waste to keep saying unless you think it will make it true LOL but it wont

That's for everyone, including if you've gone through the 2 hour training session to be a TSA agent and got your plastic badge. A COP, is NOT allowed to touch anyone like that if there isn't very SPECIFC and VERY limited circumstances.

unless of course you agree to those searches which you do when you choose to fly lmao

Also, any radiation is bad... these scanners are NOT enough to cause any damage from a single scan, BUT your REFUSAL to be put through that machine DOES NOT provide justification for the further search... that's been legal precedent forever.

they deemed it does to protect us all

A cop cannot walk up to you and say 'let me search your bags'... and you ask for probable cause to search and he tells you, well, your refusal to let me IS probable cause... THAT is unconstitutional.

you are correct, to bad your example has NOTHING to do with whats going on at the airport lol
nice meaningless point though

I don't know what kind of banana republic you aspire to live in, but you should be ashamed to think of yourself as american if you honestly believe that people should succumb to harassment or worse in order to travel. .

I live in REALITY and the reality is if I dont like those things I dont have to fly and when I fly I KNOW those things are going to happen and they happen to try and help protect me so im not ashamed one bit because im not a drama queen and I dont view it has "harassment" at all LMAO:lamo


How about we just go right back 500 years and reinstate primae noctis?? Would that be freedom enough for your liking???

another meaningless point LOL

God I wish all you anti-american scum would just move to china or the koreas where you don't have these pesky rights... then EVERYONE would be happier.

yeah I know how could I possible think that I shouldnt be able to force my views on others, and stupid me for hoping the airways become safer and we have less dange flying LMAO

man so anti-american I am, I should call people names like scum and want them thrown out the country that would make me a real american :2rofll:
 
LMAO
what does YOUR example of leaving your house and you choosing to fly commercially?
oh thats right NOTHING :2rofll: that might be the dumbest, most worthless, irrelevant example I have ever seen.

its no violation

It's called a ****ing example, and just because you say it isn't a violation in of itself doesn't make it so.

A lot of good points have been made by Mcfly that you seem to either not understand or missed all together. For example, we have continually given examples as to how choice or a lack therefore has nothing to do whether a specific act is or is not a rights violation.

As for not flying, again, it is not as simple as you make it seem - people who work on business often need to fly, if you have to travel long distances over land - or over water especially, and do so quickly, you need to fly.
 
Last edited:
It's called a ****ing example, and just because you say it isn't a violation in of itself doesn't make it so.

I know an example that has absolutley now bearing on anything being discussed here lol
if its a violation tell me how then


A lot of good points have been made by Mcfly that you seem to either not understand or missed all together. For example, we have continually given examples as to how choice or a lack therefore has nothing to do whether a specific act is or is not a rights violation.

actually nobody did that choice has a direct impact lolI understood them all he didnt and neither do you.

For example if a cop asks to search me without cause and I say no, he cant.
BUT
If he asks to search me without cause and i say YES and he finds something guess what? I GAVE UP MY RIGHT BY CHOICE lol


As for not flying, again, it is not as simple as you make it seem - people who work on business often need to fly, if you have to travel long distances over land - or over water especially, and do so quickly, you need to fly.

You are correct you may need to fly but flying is not a right so therefore the point is moot.
I may need to drive but they arent forced to give me a license. there are rules and requirments to get one.

I fly often due to my work, never foriegn but all over the US. I understand that there are RULES and REQUIRMENTS to fly and if I dont like those rules I dont get to fly. pretty simple actually
 
Did you, as a taxpayer, provide more then 1 cent towards the building and / or operation of that airport??

Irrelevant. My money as a tax payer is also going towards 2 wars. Doesn't mean that I should be able to say how those wars are conducted.

What's the limit then?? How far before it becomes a 'violation'?? Do they have to MURDER people before it's a violation?? Or are you going to say that they can do that because it's 'your choice'...

It goes to far when they force you through those check points. Since you are not forced to go through them it is not a violation.

Rights are NOT delineated by CHOICE.

People waive thier rights all the time. As already stated people have the right to waive thier right to have a lawyer present during any court proceedings or any interrogations by police officials. People may also waive thier right for a cop to have a warrant to search private property. In general, a person has the right to waive thier rights.

You have the right to be secure in your PERSONS and your property against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, the metal detectors were SPECIFICALLY designed not to touch a person and setting off the alarm provided 'justification' for a further search, a quick pat-down / wand down. This was determined to be 'reasonable'...

Correct. If you are refering to the court case that I think you are it was also determined that the choice to go through the security checkpoint was enough to waive a persons 4th amendment rights away. It was actually a major deciding factor in the case, along with the "reasonable" part of course. ;)

Now, if you're talking in the sense that this hasn't been challenged constitutionally then you WOULD have a point, but that's not the point you're making... you're making the point that TSA goon squads are above the law. That's it that's all...and if you can't see that... well... god bless you.

I don't know about him but I state what I do based on past case law. It is not hard to take that past case law and apply it to this also. It will be interesting to see how the courts eventually rule on this bit. But from past history I doubt that it will be any different from past decisions. Yes I fully admit that I may be wrong on this and that some how the choice of waiveing your rights away is not sufficient to allow these new TSA measures to continue. I doubt that I am wrong, but it is possible.

The bottom line :
- Unwanted touch is assault.

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?

- Unwanted touch over the clothes of the private areas is an arrestable misdemeanor.

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?

- Unwanted touch UNDER the clothes is SEXUAL ASSAULT and under any normal circumstance would see the person charged and put in jail for 5-10 years + mandatory registration as a sex offender.

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen? (BTW since when do the TSA agents touch under the clothes?)

That's for everyone, including if you've gone through the 2 hour training session to be a TSA agent and got your plastic badge. A COP, is NOT allowed to touch anyone like that if there isn't very SPECIFC and VERY limited circumstances.

That's funny, when I was arrested many years ago I was touched like that when I was frisked.

Also, any radiation is bad... these scanners are NOT enough to cause any damage from a single scan, BUT your REFUSAL to be put through that machine DOES NOT provide justification for the further search... that's been legal precedent forever.

According to case law once you get to the check point and start going through it you may not refuse to go through the rest of the security procedures. Sorry can't remember the name of the court case atm but in case someone else remembers I am refering to the guy that tried to refuse further security screenings in Hawaii because he had drugs on him. (sorry, am too lazy to look it up again atm)

A cop cannot walk up to you and say 'let me search your bags'... and you ask for probable cause to search and he tells you, well, your refusal to let me IS probable cause... THAT is unconstitutional.

This is correct. But if you do give your assent and then once the cop starts in on his search you decide that you don't want him to continue the cop is legally able to continue his search regardless of you changing your mind and saying no. This is what happens in an airport when you are asked to go through the body scanner and then, on your refuseal, you are required to go through the more invasive pat down. So to sum up 1: you attempt to go through airport security which gives your assent to be searched 2: you refuse to use the body scanner 3: because you already attempted to go through the check point and there by giving your assent to be searched you are required to take the pat down search.

I don't know what kind of banana republic you aspire to live in, but you should be ashamed to think of yourself as american if you honestly believe that people should succumb to harassment or worse in order to travel.

Don't know where you live but people here have a choice of going through airport security. As such they are not "succumbing" to harrassment. They are voluntarily going through the checkpoint. As such it is not considered harrasment. Harrasment is doing something against a persons will.

How about we just go right back 500 years and reinstate primae noctis?? Would that be freedom enough for your liking???

I honestly don't know what "primae noctis" is.

God I wish all you anti-american scum would just move to china or the koreas where you don't have these pesky rights... then EVERYONE would be happier.

And I wish that whenever someone has a different view point on a political/legal stand point people would stop calling them "anti-American". Ad homs does nothing for your side of the arguement. it actually detracts from it.
 
It's called a ****ing example, and just because you say it isn't a violation in of itself doesn't make it so.

A very bad example.

A lot of good points have been made by Mcfly that you seem to either not understand or missed all together. For example, we have continually given examples as to how choice or a lack therefore has nothing to do whether a specific act is or is not a rights violation.

Each point of his was refuted. And I have yet to see any valid example that is applicable to the main discussion.

As for not flying, again, it is not as simple as you make it seem - people who work on business often need to fly, if you have to travel long distances over land - or over water especially, and do so quickly, you need to fly.

This to has been refuted. Sorry, not going to go through them AGAIN just because you brought it up again. Go back and read the posts that I have made in this thread about it.
 
When you go through a checkpoint, you know you will get screened in some form, not felt up or digitally strip search.. Again, SINCE WHEN was flying in of itself enough of a waiver, and how do you justify repeating the same goddamned things over and over without, I dunno, PROVING IT, and expecting us to just buy it? The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of airport security in general, but never yet had to deal with these specific measures.

And again, flying is not so much a choice when you look deeper into who flies, why, and the how of specific circumstances, but even if it weren't, so what? Why do you and other people supporting these measures keep on clinging on to this bit of irrelevant opinion?
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant. My money as a tax payer is also going towards 2 wars. Doesn't mean that I should be able to say how those wars are conducted.

Right, but paying taxes turns the airport into public property... this is important because of the precedent set here as well...

It goes to far when they force you through those check points. Since you are not forced to go through them it is not a violation.

They do 'force' you through... flying in today's society is NOT necessarily a choice. So, if the choice is 'keep your job' or 'keep your dignity' most people will be forced to give up their dignity.

People waive thier rights all the time. As already stated people have the right to waive thier right to have a lawyer present during any court proceedings or any interrogations by police officials. People may also waive thier right for a cop to have a warrant to search private property. In general, a person has the right to waive thier rights.

- Going to court pro se can be an effective legal tactic if you know your rights.
- In an interrogation room, being upfront without a lawyer present is often the preferable choice.
- People also waive their rights to sue the cops for the abuse of power.

What's the difference with your examples : You are given the CLEAR choice.
- A judge will talk you into getting a lawyer
- An officer MUST read your miranda rights.
- If a cop really wants to search he will make your life hell until you let him... now, if you are ignorant of your rights as a citizen then it's all too easy for you to get railroaded... but if you are empowered with the knowledge then you are the one that can remain in control...

Correct. If you are refering to the court case that I think you are it was also determined that the choice to go through the security checkpoint was enough to waive a persons 4th amendment rights away. It was actually a major deciding factor in the case, along with the "reasonable" part of course. ;)

Yes, an the reason why it was 'reasonable' had to do with the machine not being intrusive, that it not impact your being secure in your persons, etc... This new back scatter machine goes beyond the 'reasonable'... let's say it wasn't a machine... stripping down naked to get on a plane IS by any stretch a violation of your rights, it is an act of humiliation and domination. Then, if you decide to stand up for yourself and to NOT succumb to this violation then you are forced to undergo a different violation of an 'advanced pat-down'... just like 'advanced interrogation' is a PC name for torture, this enhanced pat-down is a PC name for 'groping', 'sexual assault', 'molestation' and possibly a few other choice names you could give.

If your 'choice' is between two violations of your rights that is not a choice at all... I remember hearing that choice once before :
You have the choice "give me all your money or I blow your brains out"... that's the type of choice this is approaching.

I don't know about him but I state what I do based on past case law. It is not hard to take that past case law and apply it to this also. It will be interesting to see how the courts eventually rule on this bit. But from past history I doubt that it will be any different from past decisions. Yes I fully admit that I may be wrong on this and that some how the choice of waiveing your rights away is not sufficient to allow these new TSA measures to continue. I doubt that I am wrong, but it is possible.

I know of at least 5-6 cases that are pending against the TSA already...

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?
This first one, the touching alone wouldn't be called an assault against a security agent, even if they are unqualified and untrained.

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen?

How does a police officer pat you down after you've been arrested :
- Check the legs
- Check your waist
- Pat around your sides
Takes about 15 seconds, no need to touch breasts or genitals... SO, the TSA is going above and beyond what a uniform police officer is ALLOWED TO DO without a warrant.

Further, you don't 'know' it will happen, further down you admit that you don't even know what the TSA is doing.

Is it unwanted when you voluntarily go to the airport knowing what will happen? (BTW since when do the TSA agents touch under the clothes?)

You should have paid attention before commenting on how 'reasonable' this is... go to youtube; search TSA - groping, sexual assault, molestation, under clothes, etc... as separate search terms... I could easily show about 10-15 clips, going through the range of TSA abuses... and YES, this DOES include feeling INSIDE YOUR PANTS and SQUEEZING.

Any more intrusive and it would have to be called a cavity search. On CHILDREN too...

That's funny, when I was arrested many years ago I was touched like that when I was frisked.

A cop cannot legally grab your genitals without being in a VERY specific set of circumstances, and ONLY after you've been actually arrested for something.... but even then, most of the time they will not go that far... If you get thrown into a prison cell, I'm told the search is a bit more intrusive, but that's part of setting the 'who is the boss'....

According to case law once you get to the check point and start going through it you may not refuse to go through the rest of the security procedures. Sorry can't remember the name of the court case atm but in case someone else remembers I am refering to the guy that tried to refuse further security screenings in Hawaii because he had drugs on him. (sorry, am too lazy to look it up again atm)

Ya, there was another case recently, not gone to court yet, but the TSA told him that he could just leave and forgo his flight... he left and police chased him down and charged him civilly for 11000$... That's not so important though... the fact is that everyone at the gut level KNOWS that these machines are a violation, they represent a health risk, they are ineffective (as proven by the fact that TSA searches people with the biggest breasts first, ignoring those with guns), etc... so people refuse to succumb to this one act of humiliation and forced into another act of humiliation.

So, just because there's been no specific precedence, any common sense should tell you that this goes above and beyond any 'reasonable' search... and so is a violation of our rights...

And actually, given your knowledge of case law, it's been found that the right to travel is a cornerstone of a free-society... so if you're desire is to reduce or eliminate that right... well, as I said in the last post, maybe your views are contrary to the views of a free society and so would be preferable for yourself to move to a country that does not give its' citizens any rights... this would allow you to be a slave like you want, and would allow me and others to remain free in this country.

This is correct. But if you do give your assent and then once the cop starts in on his search you decide that you don't want him to continue the cop is legally able to continue his search regardless of you changing your mind and saying no. This is what happens in an airport when you are asked to go through the body scanner and then, on your refuseal, you are required to go through the more invasive pat down. So to sum up 1: you attempt to go through airport security which gives your assent to be searched 2: you refuse to use the body scanner 3: because you already attempted to go through the check point and there by giving your assent to be searched you are required to take the pat down search.

But here's where it goes unreasonable : The wand USED to be a viable option... NOT ANYMORE.

Hell, even taking your shoes off is unreasonable... it's an act of domination. Then the metal detector was reasonable... but now if you set off the alarm instead of getting wanded to see that it was due to a hip replacement, or a knee replacement, it's instantly... Ok what do you want, to be stripped naked or felt up???

And somehow you find this acceptable???

Don't know where you live but people here have a choice of going through airport security. As such they are not "succumbing" to harrassment. They are voluntarily going through the checkpoint. As such it is not considered harrasment. Harrasment is doing something against a persons will.

Where's the way to get on the plane without going through security?? If one does not exist then they are FORCING you through... oh but just travelling to europe, you should have known and taken your car. F*** that noise.

I honestly don't know what "primae noctis" is.

That's where the state (originally the king) has the 'right of the first night' once you get married.

And I wish that whenever someone has a different view point on a political/legal stand point people would stop calling them "anti-American". Ad homs does nothing for your side of the arguement. it actually detracts from it.

The ONLY part of that which was ad hom is the 'scum' part of that... but bottom line, we have rights as individuals in this country... and anyone that would find it preferable to limit / end those rights IS ANTI-AMERICAN. End of story.

If you don't like living in a free society and would prefer to live in a closed / heavily controlled society then you might find it preferable to move to places like China, or the koreas... it's not an insult, it should serve as a wake-up call to what you are supporting, but beyond the 'scum' part of that statement it is not an insult... if you take offense then you should realize what it is you are pushing for...

And if you don't realize, I'll give you a hint of how things started based on another historical precedent : "Papers, please." (Then again, we've been showing our 'papers' for YEARS, probably decades)
 
When you go through a checkpoint, you know you will get screened in some form, not felt up or digitally strip search..
LMAO at this fantasy who doesnt know this? and isnt informed of this while at the airport in some way? thats just dumb

Again, SINCE WHEN was flying in of itself enough of a waiver, and how do you justify repeating the same goddamned things over and over without, I dunno, PROVING IT, and expecting us to just buy it? The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of airport security in general, but never yet had to deal with these specific measures.

the prove is COMMON SENSE if that escapes you not my probalem but you are waving your rights because you KNOW this is what is required to fly theres nothing to discuss. Theres only your spin to discuss and thats a waste of time.

when I go to the court house I KNOW i cant carry my weapon inside and I KNOW I will be patted down, wanded and go through a detector, if I dont kow there are signs everywhere telling me this. If I refuse to do this I DONT GET TO GO IN, pretty simple and cut and dry. I dont get to go to the course house and REFUSE and make up some bologna about my rights are being violated.

No search = no entry
no turning over of my gun = no entry
just like
no search = no fly

COMMON SENSE



And again, flying is not so much a choice when you look deeper into who flies, why, and the how of specific circumstances, but even if it weren't, so what? Why do you and other people supporting these measures keep on clinging on to this bit of irrelevant opinion?

its not irrelevant at all to those who understand the constitution and rights
since FLYING isnt a right and its a commercial flight, public flight, and at this point can even be argued to have national security risk, if the requirements to fly are that you have to go through searches then thats the way it is lol

the very fact that flying is a CHOICE is HUGELY relevant because its the whole reason why there is no rights violation LMAO

not shocked you dont see that.
 
People should be searched and scanned so the F-in plane is safe.

Why is this thread still active? This is a not a difficult topic. Im surprised it got over 30 responses.
 
The best way to counter terrorism is to allow pilots and stewardesses to carry loaded pistols. Other than that, a basic metal detector, a pat-down/strip-search for ultra-suspicious activity.
 
Why is this thread still active? This is a not a difficult topic. Im surprised it got over 30 responses.

Because the issue is not over the goal, but the means.

It's there in black and ****ing white.

The issue is not with the concept of screening, but the methods employed.
 
People should be searched and scanned so the F-in plane is safe.

Why is this thread still active? This is a not a difficult topic. Im surprised it got over 30 responses.

because people and their dramatize, victim ways who dont understand the constitution nor reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom