M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I've mentioned the 4th Amendment being violated, let's start there. Yes you mentioned it. You could also mention that the tooth fairy is a cia mole..for all the relevance of it. No one is forced to be searched....a key element you seem unable to grasp. Secondly the 4th admendment speaks of "unreasonable search". Anyone one who wants to challenge security measures would have to show that security measures are unreasonable... While you are on the topic of misunderstanding the bill of rights, I suppose you are alos willing to champion the 2nd admendment in regards to airline travel. I think you will have as much luck with that as arguing that a voluntary search is in violation of the 4th. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I've mentioned the 4th Amendment being violated, let's start there. That's not good enough....please cite case law and court proceedings. The irony is that any "profiling" you advocate would most certainly not survive a court challenge with respect to the US Constitution. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 That's not good enough....please cite case law and court proceedings. The irony is that any "profiling" you advocate would most certainly not survive a court challenge with respect to the US Constitution. Since this is all relatively new, that will be around the corner, I suspect that to happen this year. Would you accept someone grabbing your junk and say it's for your own safety? Quote
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 Yes you mentioned it. You could also mention that the tooth fairy is a cia mole..for all the relevance of it. No one is forced to be searched....a key element you seem unable to grasp. Secondly the 4th admendment speaks of "unreasonable search". Anyone one who wants to challenge security measures would have to show that security measures are unreasonable... While you are on the topic of misunderstanding the bill of rights, I suppose you are alos willing to champion the 2nd admendment in regards to airline travel. I think you will have as much luck with that as arguing that a voluntary search is in violation of the 4th. You can face a fine up to $11,000 if you refuse to get patted down or go through the scanner. Apparently once you start the process of getting screened, you have to go all the way or risk a fine. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 Since this is all relatively new, that will be around the corner, I suspect that to happen this year. Given that the 2nd amendment can not be enforced when you decide to travel by plane...and that is not relatively new, why would you think that the 4th would apply, when you decide to travel by air? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 You can face a fine up to $11,000 if you refuse to get patted down or go through the scanner. Apparently once you start the process of getting screened, you have to go all the way or risk a fine. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-man-faces-fine-for-refusing-tsa-scan,0,7222070.story Your link is fiskered. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 Given that the 2nd amendment can not be enforced when you decide to travel by plane...and that is not relatively new, why would you think that the 4th would apply, when you decide to travel by air? The TSA is not a private entity, it is a government department. The airlines are not putting in these restrictions, the government is. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 The TSA is not a private entity, it is a government department. The airlines are not putting in these restrictions, the government is. The government doe snot force you to fly by air....but they do force you, if you decide to fly by air, to fly without bearing arms. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm Explain this obvious violation of the 2nd admendment. I mean.....I mean.... Would you accept someone grabbing first line of defence and say it's for your own safety? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 The government doe snot force you to fly by air....but they do force you, if you decide to fly by air, to fly without bearing arms. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm Explain this obvious violation of the 2nd admendment. I mean.....I mean.... Would you accept someone grabbing first line of defence and say it's for your own safety? I said 4th amendment, not the second. This is not a first line of defense stance. That was the whole war on terror. This is not for terrorists, this is for the average American. The airlines are not forcing this on you, they had not even asked for this. It is the government who is violating your rights, not the airlines, that is the difference here. Some airports have gone back to private security companies because of the issues with the TSA, but that won't last long, because the TSA procedures will be forced on those airports in time. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I said 4th amendment, not the second. I know you did. The contradictions your flimsy argument presents escapes you.n Let me try again... If the TSA can without fear of a constitutional challenge require you to fly unarmed, why can they not ask you to submit to a search? The answer is rather easy of course but you have your knickers in a knot so you will avoid the easy answer... It is the government who is violating your rights, not the airlines, that is the difference here. What rights? ... the 2nd? How long do you think it has been since it has been illegal to fly packing heat? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I said 4th amendment, not the second. My Fourth Amendment rights are intact....you never had them. This is not a first line of defense stance. That was the whole war on terror. This is not for terrorists, this is for the average American. Right..and the next time it happens...more over the border blame from you for not "connecting the dots". The airlines are not forcing this on you, they had not even asked for this. It is the government who is violating your rights, not the airlines, that is the difference here. US airspace is controlled by the government...same as in Canada. Some airports have gone back to private security companies because of the issues with the TSA, but that won't last long, because the TSA procedures will be forced on those airports in time. As they should be. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 What is the DHS doing to keep you safe? A better question would be, what are we doing to ensure our governments can't make the world an increasingly dangerous place? Right..and the next time it happens...more over the border blame from you for not "connecting the dots". Creating the dots you mean. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 What is the DHS doing to keep you safe? There is no such thing as safe...only probability and statistics. A better question would be, what are we doing to ensure our governments can't make the world an increasingly dangerous place? The world has been and will always be a dangerous place. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 The world has been and will always be a dangerous place. That's a really piss poor excuse for making it worse. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 That's a really piss poor excuse for making it worse. That is quite preferable to your version of whatever would make it "better". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 That is quite preferable to your version of whatever would make it "better". How would you know that without having even tried? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 That is quite preferable to your version of whatever would make it "better". So what is his version of making things better? Quote
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 Your link is fiskered. Do you know how to cut and paste?? Figure it out. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 So what is his version of making things better? Referendums for everything from recycling to World War III. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 I know you did. The contradictions your flimsy argument presents escapes you.n Let me try again... It's your contradiction. I said the 4th, and you went on about the second. Reading comprehension issue possibly on your part? If the TSA can without fear of a constitutional challenge require you to fly unarmed, why can they not ask you to submit to a search? Anything can be used as a weapon. I could use my belt as a weapon by strangling someone. It's called trying to be reasonable about it, and neither you or BC are being reasonable when it comes to security. It's more of a pain for those flying that those who are going to commit terror attacks. The answer is rather easy of course but you have your knickers in a knot so you will avoid the easy answer... The easy answer is not to fly. What rights? ... the 2nd? How long do you think it has been since it has been illegal to fly packing heat? It's always been illegal to carry guns on board, do your point is pointless. But items like small bottles of liquid, nail clippers, small sharp objects ect ect .. removal of shoes, full body scanners, invasive pat downs.... all for security? Not convinced at all. Quote
eyeball Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 Referendums for everything from recycling to World War III. Interestingly enough we voted in a recycling program in my region a year and a half ago. More specifically though I'd definitely make the act of invading another country something that only a super-majority of voters could authorize. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 Anything can be used as a weapon. I could use my belt as a weapon by strangling someone. It's called trying to be reasonable about it, and neither you or BC are being reasonable when it comes to security. It's more of a pain for those flying that those who are going to commit terror attacks. Is it "unreasonable" to prevent such things in schools and the workplace as well? Are my precious rights that you are hell bent on protecting compromised by my employer's door sign that states "...bans guns on the premises"? Even though I have a concealed carry permit? Should I sue? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 Is it "unreasonable" to prevent such things in schools and the workplace as well? Are my precious rights that you are hell bent on protecting compromised by my employer's door sign that states "...bans guns on the premises"? Even though I have a concealed carry permit? Should I sue? You are confusing government restrictions with private corporation restrictions. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) It's your contradiction. I said the 4th, and you went on about the second. Reading comprehension issue possibly on your part? Not my reading, it's your logic that impairs you. Why is the 4th any different than the 2nd? Why aren't you arguing against not allowing armned passengers on planes? Why haven't you nbeen able to construct an argument that claims that airline security is not reasonable? It's always been illegal to carry guns on board, do your point is pointless. Prove it. Unless of course, by "always" you mean after the Cuban Skyjackings of the 1960s...then I concede the point Edited January 5, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 You are confusing government restrictions with private corporation restrictions. No I'm not...you are refusing to accept basic logic, whether they be government schools or private businesses, which had to respond to the right-to-carry. Why aren't you jumping up and down in Saskatoon about my loss of gun rights? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.