TSA Hits the Road

[alaskaflyer]

And what are the consequences to the policeman who thinks he can and does so?

Thinks and does which?

Search when the law says he can? Kudos if he finds something significant
When the laws says he can't? 99.75% of the time, nothing other than probably having whatever he finds tossed out of court. Theoretically? A successful 1983 claim (18USC1983) or Bivens action depending on who he works for.

It's interesting that I don't think a TSA officer would be personally liable for a Bivens action, at least not under current case law.

 

[John Baker]

I thought all TSA employees were immune to any sort of prosecution whatsoever. I think I also heard that the agency itself can not be held liable for any damage or wrong it might have, or is committing. Patriot Act?

John

 

[PeterDudek]

I'm actually GRATEFUL for the TSA!

If it weren't for them and my utter disgust of what they represent (official introduction of the totalitarian police state) I would probably have delayed my pilot training.

As it is, since I REFUSE TO FLY COMMERCIAL as long as there is a TSA stomping their boots on the Constitution, I'm well on my way to becoming a pilot. Thanks TSA!

Now, if they start expanding their tyranny into GA I'm not sure what will happen. But I'll wager most people in this forum will not be pleased. ;-)

 

[Bob Noel]

Now, if they start expanding their tyranny into GA I'm not sure what will happen. But I'll wager most people in this forum will not be pleased. ;-)

"Start"? I hate to tell you, but that train left the station many years ago.

 

[fgcason]

Now, if they start expanding their tyranny into GA I'm not sure what will happen. But I'll wager most people in this forum will not be pleased. ;-)

You're late! Get your pitchfork and torch and get to the back of the line.

You didn't fly before the tsa/dhs/gestapo took over.
This is pretty much what it was like: Imagine a nice day when it was beautiful weather and you just went out to the airplane and took off without calling anyone. No FSS, no ATC, no checking notams, not even checking the weather, no monitoring radios much less 121.5 unless you wanted to. Then flew over DC and NYC and pretty much anywhere else you wanted just by contacting the appropriate ATC facility if necessary and off you went as long as the controllers could handle you in B/C/D airspace. Circle a nuke plant, go for it. ADIZ was something you never had to bother with because it was national border stuff or way out in the ocean somewhere. Roaming pop up tfr's were pretty much nonexistent. No background checks for a license. No fences or locked gates for the most part. No getting the hairy eyeball or having to talk to the police when you stop on the side of the road and watch airplanes while having lunch. There were a few places you couldn't go or had to ask nicely however the sectional was pretty much static and reliable on it's own. You had to go way out of your way and do something pretty spectacularly stupid to get escorted at gunpoint...like drug running across the border.

Yes. That was GA prior to the airliner cruise missiles and we've been holding the bag for them ever since.

You think it's free right now because you didn't know what it was like before. The next generation of pilots will think today is free. The group after that will be flying in North Korea thinking they are free.
Right now, it's gestappo land compared to the 1990's and before.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You're late! Get your pitchfork and torch and get to the back of the line.

Circle a nuke plant, go for it.

I knew someone who worked in the defense industry. One of his military aviation contacts commented that they were doing some kind of film and really wanted to have "gun camera" footage of attacks on various targets like nuclear power plants but a mock strafing run with a fighter jet would cause too much of a disturbance.
So, my buddy decided to have fun - took a video camera and made repeated passes at some factories, a nuclear plant, some other things, and his bosses house. (Hard slip to keep the prop out of the frame).
Gave it to the military guy who put it into the film they were making (except for the passes on the buddies bosses house...).

 

[JeffDG]

Well the Constitution does still give us the right to revolution. But I don't think our government would ever let that happen.

Where?

 

[Anthony]

Yes, while we did start this country through armed revolution, I do not believe we have the Constitutional right to "revolt". If you're going to revolt, you are basically stating that you are intentionally breaking the law anyway, and not giving validity to the current legal system. Many atrocities have been committed at various times and in various countries, and they were perfectly "legal" for the government to do them. Not moral, nor ethical, but "legal".

 

[fgcason]

Where?

It's not directly a right however it's implied by that amendment 2 thing.
You gotta love a gov't that when it started it basically said "if you don't like what we're doing to you, come shoot us if we don't straighten our act up."

Too bad integrity and honor and responsibility to the people is GONE.

 

[JeffDG]

It's not directly a right however it's implied by that amendment 2 thing.
You gotta love a gov't that when it started it basically said "if you don't like what we're doing to you, come shoot us if we don't straighten our act up."

Too bad integrity and honor and responsibility to the people is GONE.

How'd that right to revolt work out for South Carolina et al. in the 19th Century? The second amendment was there then, wasn't it?

The 2nd implies no right to revolt whatsoever. It was meant to have a populace trained in firearms so that there would be a ready supply of soldiers to put down such silliness.

 

[Anthony]

How'd that right to revolt work out for South Carolina et al. in the 19th Century? The second amendment was there then, wasn't it?

The 2nd implies no right to revolt whatsoever. It was meant to have a populace trained in firearms so that there would be a ready supply of soldiers to put down such silliness.

Spoken like a true subject of the Crown.


While I don't believe the 2nd gives us a "legal" right to revolt, the intent was to be able to raise a militia of CITIZENS and protect our lives and private property FROM a tyrannical government like Great Britain. The 2nd was not meant to protect the current reigning Government.

 

[JeffDG]

Spoken like a true subject of the Crown. While I don't believe the 2nd gives us a "legal" right to revolt, the intent was to be able to raise a militia of CITIZENS and protect our lives and private property FROM a tyrannical government like Great Britain. The 2nd was not meant to protect the current reigning Government.

Yet one of the powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Congress is:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

The first use of the militia in the United States, by President Washington, was conducted under the Militia Act if 1792 was to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.

This historical record does not support your assertions.

 

[Anthony]

Well, I suppose the "Continental Congress" was formed ILLEGALLY mind you. We were still technically under British rule when we took up arms against them.

I know a lot of this is semantics, but if you asked the Brits and many colonists, at the time the largest, "legal" empire in the world, their perspective and many inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies, actually more than half of them, still considered the British Crown their government.

Was the Confederacy the "legal" government of the South?

 

[N801BH]

Define " suppress insurrections "..... Any logical citizen might be able to conclude the gross mismanagement of this country by all the politicians could rise to the level of a legitimate INSURRECTION.....

Then what happens ?..

My gut feeling is it ain't gonna be pretty...

 

[JeffDG]

Define " suppress insurrections ".

Because the power is granted to Congress, it's up to them to define it.

 

[N801BH]

Because the power is granted to Congress, it's up to them to define it.

Just don't forget that Famous stated term.... "WE THE PEOPLE"....

If you keep reading on it adds to the scenerio...

 

[fgcason]

How'd that right to revolt work out for South Carolina et al. in the 19th Century? The second amendment was there then, wasn't it?

That's the problem. The powers that be end up with bigger guns than the people in order to protect the people..then the people either submit or die when the people in charge feel threatened by the citizens. USA or North Korea? - and can you tell the difference after 200+ years when trying to revolt? If 300 million people storm the capitol today to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, we will get carpet bombed.

The 2nd implies no right to revolt whatsoever. It was meant to have a populace trained in firearms so that there would be a ready supply of soldiers to put down such silliness.

Think about what was happening when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were implemented. We the citizens had just told the Crown (the existing tyrannical gov't) to go stuff themselves. The people running the new gov't at the time didn't like being bullied to the point that they got together and signed a document that was high treason punishable by death. The new people in charge knew what it was like being suppressed citizens that were being bullied and they did not want that happening to their citizens so they gave us the right and the ability to be able to storm the castle.

History is about connections. Everything is related to everything else. Each sentence or series of words are connected to every other sentence and words. None of it can be taken out of context and keep it's original meaning.
Take those documents as a full historical summary of what was happening in the 1700's. The 2nd amendment was about the people being able to protect themselves, not to protect the gov't. The US government is supposed to be afraid of the US Citizens, not the other way around. That's why the Constitution starts with "We the People."


Hmmm. Can you imagine the integrity of 1776 happening today? A group of people get together and sign their own execution orders. Then once that works out, they sign another order that allows their own people to overthrow them and oh by the way here's your guns to do the deed if we resist. That is integrity beyond anything you'll find today...

 

[JeffDG]

That's the problem. The powers that be end up with bigger guns than the people in order to protect the people..then the people either submit or die when the people in charge feel threatened by the citizens. USA or North Korea? - and can you tell the difference after 200+ years when trying to revolt? If 300 million people storm the capitol today to overthrow a tyrannical gov't, we will get carpet bombed.



Think about what was happening when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were implemented. We the citizens had just told the Crown (the existing tyrannical gov't) to go stuff themselves. The people running the new gov't at the time didn't like being bullied to the point that they got together and signed a document that was high treason punishable by death. The new people in charge knew what it was like being suppressed citizens that were being bullied and they did not want that happening to their citizens so they gave us the right and the ability to be able to storm the castle.

History is about connections. Everything is related to everything else. Each sentence or series of words are connected to every other sentence and words. None of it can be taken out of context and keep it's original meaning.
Take those documents as a full historical summary of what was happening in the 1700's. The 2nd amendment was about the people being able to protect themselves, not to protect the gov't. The US government is supposed to be afraid of the US Citizens, not the other way around. That's why the Constitution starts with "We the People."

So, why then did these same people, who were of course scared of a overbearing government, give the right to the Congress to call up the militia in order to suppress insurrections? And why did those same folks, almost immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution (the same Congress that proposed the 2nd Amendment) adopt the Militia Act of 1792, which gave the President the authority to call the militia into federal service?

You're right. History is about connections. The people who set up the US government had fought off a great empire, and they set up a system to ensure that their government could not be brought down by the same forces.

The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide people for the Militia...if you want to read out of context, you cannot ignore the preamble of the 2nd amendment. Now, I'm not some liberal nut who thinks that the 2nd only permits you to keep and bear arms when a member of the militia, but you cannot ignore that the 2nd was created with the purpose of arming a militia, and the Constitution puts the authority to use that militia in the hands of the Congress.

 

[Anthony]

We're talking about INTENT here, not individual examples of the use of state powers.

 

[JeffDG]

We're talking about INTENT here, not individual examples of the use of state powers.

We're talking about the use of the Constitutional powers...by the people who wrote it...and you claim you have a better understanding of the INTENT of the Constitution than the people who wrote and ratified it?

 

[Anthony]

The people who wrote the Constitution used its power illegally, in a technical sense to overthrow the current, LEGAL government in power. I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do, but at that point, they were NOT a recognized government so therefore an armed insurrection against the government in power.

Again, was the Confederacy, the legal government of the South? I think that is a good analogy, but you refuse to address it.

 

[JeffDG]

The people who wrote the Constitution used its power illegally, in a technical sense to overthrow the current, LEGAL government in power. I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do, but at that point, they were NOT a recognized government so therefore an armed insurrection against the government in power.

Again, was the Confederacy, the legal government of the South? I think that is a good analogy, but you refuse to address it.

I'm addressing the claim that the Constitution retains a right of revolt contained somewhere therein.

It does not. If it had, then the Civil War would have been a legal revolt under that right. It was not. It was an armed insurrection against the United States.

The Constitution did not exist during the Revolution, and was created by the legally recognized governments of the States. It came almost a decade after the Revolution had been won.

 

[fgcason]

You're right. History is about connections. The people who set up the US government had fought off a great empire, and they set up a system to ensure that their government could not be brought down by the same forces.

Why would a group of people who just tossed off the chains of a suppressive empire turn around five minutes later and tell their own people that the British style of suppression was in their own best interest and the way things will now be again and if they don't like it, they can bow down to the new kings anyway? That's probably one of the fastest ways there is to get lynched.

If you read through everything, you'll find that we the people have the ability to throw the constitution out if we decide it's bunk and no longer in the interest of the people. If we toss the constitution, those people in charge are out of a job.

The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide people for the Militia...if you want to read out of context, you cannot ignore the preamble of the 2nd amendment.

which says:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
At which time entry #2 was "here's your ability to shoot back if we step too far out of line."

They had to write a two edged sword. One was to keep a wacko group from taking over thus for the best interest of everyone as a whole. And the other to keep the gov't in line as a subject of the people.
How exactly do you write a simple straightforward document that says "don't mess with us" and "here's the bullseye on our head if you don't like what we're doing?"

 

[Anthony]

The Supreme Court of the U.S. recently upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, not only to raise a militia. The militia statement and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are seperate.

 

[JeffDG]

The Supreme Court of the U.S. recently upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, not only to raise a militia. The militia statement and the right of the people to keep and bear arms are seperate.

True, it is an individual right. But to claim that the second was inserted to give a "right of revolt" is, simply, wrong. The preamble of the 2nd clearly states that it's purpose is to arm the militia, even if the right is not restricted to same. And Congress has the power to regulate and call out the militia to put down any revolts that may occur.

The founders were not shy about using that power either.

 

[Florida Cracker]

I know people that argue the DHS and TSA and EPA and DOA and DOJ and FBI and ATF and so on and so on and so on... will cause some kind of mass act of civil disobedience on purpose, to allow the gov't to massively reduce civil liberties, freedom of speech, religion and the press within the next ten years.
I used to think they were nuts, then I see things like the imbecile TSA worker that forced a woman to pump breast milk, to "prove" her breast pump wasn't a weapon. That got me thinking that people will find a generic, end point, at which a bunch of folks will simply refuse to comply and provoke/provide the jerks at DHS the right opening to suspend civil rights, enact martial law, "delay" elections and take over for the rest of us.

 

[dmspilot]

And Congress has the power to regulate and call out the militia to put down any revolts that may occur.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can do that?

Why would the Bill of Rights protect the citizens' right to bear arms and then allow Congress to tell them what to do? That is ridiculous.

The preamble of the 2nd clearly states that it's purpose is to arm the militia

And the purpose of that is to protect freedom.

 

[John Baker]

Any revolt, to succeed, must have the popular support of the people. So why bother with weapons when we have the power to vote out the existing government and install a new one?

If you can rally the people to arms, why not just rally the people to the polls? If you can not convince enough people to vote them out of office, what makes you think you can convince enough of them to mount a successful armed revolt?

To me, in a country such as this, one of the few in the world like it, it is stupid to even consider an armed rebellion against such a militarily overpowering government.
If you are that unhappy with what we have, start convincing enough people to go to the polls and change it.

Killing and maiming, or being killed or maimed, is a ridicules approach when we already have such a simple method of replacing our leaders.

John

 

[Palmpilot]

If the public at large gets upset about an issue, Congress may take action without waiting to be voted out of office. Those folks want to get reelected!

So far, I don't think the average person is all that concerned about what the TSA is doing.

 

[Bob Noel]

If the public at large gets upset about an issue, Congress may take action without waiting to be voted out of office. Those folks want to get reelected!

So far, I don't think the average person is all that concerned about what the TSA is doing.

Given the voter turnout rate, I don't think the average person is actually concerned about elected officials.

So one thing needed is to make the voter concerned about TSA being a gross waste of resources.

 

[John Baker]

I don't think the average voter even bothers to vote in most elections. We are a very complacent and apathetic society. Until something threatens us personally, we don't really seem to care what our government does, or doesn't do to others.

So they add a few more laws and regulations every year? So what if a little tax increase is going to cost us each another hundred dollars a year, that's only a little over eight bucks a month, no biggie?

In such a society, we are not going to have an armed rebellion, and we are not going to change anything at the polls. I don't fly in aluminum cattle cars, I don't care what they do to those dumbos who do. That is our true mantra..so what, who cares?

John

 

[wsuffa]

Given the voter turnout rate, I don't think the average person is actually concerned about elected officials.

So one thing needed is to make the voter concerned about TSA being a gross waste of resources.

The average voter is primarily concerned with bashing the other party or individual, parochial concerns. "What's in it for me".

If the average, individual voter were concerned about the country as a whole, we'd have a much different make-up of our political structure.

 

[fgcason]

Any revolt, to succeed, must have the popular support of the people. So why bother with weapons when we have the power to vote out the existing government and install a new one?

So you vote one idiot out of office. Great. Wonderful, mr wack job is gone. Now that means you have to vote someone in to the same office to replace them. The problem is that the replacement is also an idiot. The people who should be in office running the country aren't the types who will parade themselves around wanting to be in those offices to start with. (You don't need a politician who shoots his mouth off to balance the budget, you need a freight train load of accountants)

You don't overhaul a system by replacing idiots with idiots. That's what the whole gun option is about. When the idiots and their successor idiots step across the line too much, you storm the castle...or make the idiots get back into line because the glow on the horizon is torches coming to toss them out. That's what this entire country was founded on. Reference; the Declaration of Independence.

 

[JeffDG]

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can do that?

Why would the Bill of Rights protect the citizens' right to bear arms and then allow Congress to tell them what to do? That is ridiculous.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[John Baker]

So you vote one idiot out of office. Great. Wonderful, mr wack job is gone. Now that means you have to vote someone in to the same office to replace them. The problem is that the replacement is also an idiot. The people who should be in office running the country aren't the types who will parade themselves around wanting to be in those offices to start with. (You don't need a politician who shoots his mouth off to balance the budget, you need a freight train load of accountants)

You don't overhaul a system by replacing idiots with idiots. That's what the whole gun option is about. When the idiots and their successor idiots step across the line too much, you storm the castle...or make the idiots get back into line because the glow on the horizon is torches coming to toss them out. That's what this entire country was founded on. Reference; the Declaration of Independence.

And therein lies our biggest problem, we lack any true leadership, nor do we have the capabilities to create leaders. All of our education, and media are dedicated to abhor and discourage individual thought, unless it is in lockstep with popular thinking. We train bureaucrats, we do not train people to be leaders on their own.

A revolution will do us no good whatsoever, we would simply set up the same thing we have now, because we know no different.

John

 

[Frank Browne]

Well the Constitution does still give us the right to revolution. But I don't think our government would ever let that happen.

One of the ways it is doing this is by pitting groups of citizens against other groups of citizens. "Hey, look over there! They hate you and don't care about you!" Meanwhile, back in DC........

 

[skidoo]

Any revolt, to succeed, must have the popular support of the people. So why bother with weapons when we have the power to vote out the existing government and install a new one?

If you can rally the people to arms, why not just rally the people to the polls?

That makes sense, except in the case of election fraud. How many of us are more than 95% confident that our elections are fair and actually represent those who vote?

 

[John Baker]

That makes sense, except in the case of election fraud. How many of us are more than 95% confident that our elections are fair and actually represent those who vote?

I would still rather take my chances on an iffy election than on an iffy insurrection.

Anyone who wants to take up arms in this country, with all our other options available to us is not operating with reasonable intelligence, but with emotions. Emotional opponents will have that used against them, and they will lose, whether in a war or on a judo mat.

Rally support for your cause to be settled at the polls. If you can rally that much support for a legal election, why would you need to take up arms?

What would make the most sense and be the easiest to accomplish, talking people into going to a voting booth, or talking them into armed rebellion?

I know if someone came to my house and said grab your gun, we gotta go and kill those SOBs, I'd tell him to go and **** off. If someone came to my house and tried to convince me to go to the polls and vote for their cause, I'd be a whole lot more receptive, especially if I agreed with them.

Bloodshed just flat out does not make sense, not in this country.

John

 

[Palmpilot]

I would still rather take my chances on an iffy election than on an iffy insurrection.

Same here. Besides the death and destruction, too many revolutions have ended up being co-opted into dictatorships. France, Russia, Cuba, and Communist China come to mind.

 

[dmspilot]

Rally support for your cause to be settled at the polls. If you can rally that much support for a legal election, why would you need to take up arms?

If we had done that we would still be a part of Great Britain.

Communist China come to mind.

An interesting sidenote to that: in the 1930s and 40s, the United States decimated the Chinese economy through FDR's silver hoarding policy; they had been on a silver standard and the result was massive deflation, followed by a switch to fiat currency and then massive inflation. The resulting economic turmoil contributed to the success of the Chinese communist revolution.