TSA Hits the Road

Frank Browne said:
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........
Click to expand...

The parties continue on our dime. Finished that for you.
 
Bob Noel said:
Insurrection through elections wasn't a viable option for the colonies.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure it is a viable option for us either. When the people you vote in are as bad or worse than the people you vote out, where does the self serving, career politics stop?
 
Anthony said:
I'm not sure it is a viable option for us either. When the people you vote in are as bad or worse than the people you vote out, where does the self serving, career politics stop?
Click to expand...

So, what law, federal state or local, is preventing better candidates from running? Don't like the candidates who present themselves, then you're free to step forward yourself.
 
JeffDG said:
So, what law, federal state or local, is preventing better candidates from running? Don't like the candidates who present themselves, then you're free to step forward yourself.
Click to expand...


No easy answers my friend. Unfortunately, the media has made it nearly impossible for the "average" person to run for much of anything, and many citizens, such as myself are just not willing to put ourselves, and our families through that.

It is not that I don't like the candidate, it that I don't like the elected official they often become. The candidates say a lot of great things that do not come to fruition in office. The populace is not blameless either. We often do not hold our politicians accountable, and expect campaing promises to be just that, a mere forgotten promise. However, it is a lot easier to hold local and state officials accountable, and I'd rather see more of the power there than with the Feds.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Seems like it worked out OK for what is now Canada, Australia, etc.

But, are we wandering off into sierra zulu land?
Click to expand...


Yes we are. One big difference. No 2nd Amendment in those two countries. It begs the question of the difference between subjects, and citiznes, and that's all I will say about that.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Seems like it worked out OK for what is now Canada, Australia, etc.
Click to expand...

What we don't know is how is would have worked out if the 13 colonies hadn't declared independence. I believe a case could be made that our independence helped other colonies.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
When you provide valid citations for the above....
Click to expand...

You can find a copy of the US Constitution here. If you read it and understand it you will conclude that most of the federal governments activities are in violation of the US Constitution.

You might be provided a citation for this.
Click to expand...

I think that unlikely.

Please don't be a jerk and make this liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...

I can assure you I wont be a jerk.
 
Anthony said:
Yes we are. One big difference. No 2nd Amendment in those two countries. It begs the question of the difference between subjects, and citiznes, and that's all I will say about that.
Click to expand...

So, between Canada and the US, which do you think is heading in the right direction right now with respect to gun legislation?
 
JeffDG said:
So, between Canada and the US, which do you think is heading in the right direction right now with respect to gun legislation?
Click to expand...


Rifle or handgun?
 
JeffDG said:
General
Click to expand...

To have a meaningful discussion you must seperate them.

Canada just repealed its long gun registration program, however, their handgun laws are draconian. handguns are either restricted or prohibited in Canada. There is no legislation pending to repeal this. The U.S. never had such a long gun registration program, nor handgun restriction/prohibition unless for some imported models that don't meet GCA 1968.

With Heller the U.S. handgun laws are becoming better in general. Many states are "shall issue", and twelve states currently have proposed, and are considering no permit, legal gun carry legislation.

So in general the U.S. continues to have a more legal, gun friendly environment than Canada, or for that matter, most foreign countries except Switzerland.

Here's a nice guide for you.

http://panda.com/canadaguns/
 
Bob Noel said:
Insurrection through elections wasn't a viable option for the colonies.
Click to expand...

But even if it had been an option, it wouldn't have happened because the majority votes wouldn't have been there.
 
Anthony said:
I'm not sure it is a viable option for us either. When the people you vote in are as bad or worse than the people you vote out, where does the self serving, career politics stop?
Click to expand...

Anthony, a voters insurrection would be one where no incumbent, in either party, gets re-elected. I've run this idea before, many times, for the consideration of this esteemed group of brilliant minds, even if we are all pilots.

If every office holder gets voted out of that office for say the next four or five elections, that would be a voters rebellion. I'm talking at all levels, from the president of the country down to the president of your home owners association.

Believe me, our elected officials would sooner or later grasp the concept of representing the voters, not the lobbyists, or lining their pockets.

Our millionaires would not find running for office such a fun idea anymore.

If you happy with the way things are, then vote incumbent. If your not happy, vote em out, no matter how good they are.

That is a voters rebellion.

John
 
JeffDG said:
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.
Click to expand...

The bombardment of Fort Sumter was an incredibly stupid act. Lincoln had pledged that if there was to be war the north would not fire the first shot. So assuming he holds true to that pledge, and the south does not fire the first shot, there's no war and secession is a done deal.
 
John Baker said:
As far as I am concerned, as soon as the United States Congress introduced their "Patriot Act" and started calling the U.S.A. "The Homeland" and the American public said little or nothing, the concept of this nation being a free country had come to an end.

When Obama ran on a platform of "change", I had hoped, should he win, he would undo all that nonsense, but he won, and took it to heart instead.

It is only a matter of time before the operators of forums such as this will become forced "patriots" and such blather as we are indulging in will not be allowed.

Following that, it will become a well enforced law.

John
Click to expand...

FTFY.

The use of "Homeland" in the agency name was chilling from the git-go - sounds completely inconsistent with our essential way of life.
 
Anthony said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the legal government you're referring to here is the British government during the revolution, you're mistaken. The US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787, four years after the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolutionary War.

Again, was the Confederacy, the legal government of the South?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
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.
Click to expand...

The American Civil War was not a civil war. A civil war is a war between factions within the same nation for control of that nation. What we call the American Civil War was actually a revolutionary war, the same as the American Revolutionary War. The southern states were fighting for their independence the same way the former thirteen British colonies fought to establish theirs.
 
roncachamp said:
If the legal government you're referring to here is the Briitish government during the revolution, you're mistaken. The US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787, four years after the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...


You're right of course. My mistake. We were under the Articles of Confederation and Continental Congress.

However, Britain did not recognize the Articles or the Congress, so it depends who you ask whether it was legal or not.

Same for the Confederacy during the Civil War. This was not a legal government to the United States.
 
If there hadn't been a glut of cotton in Europe at the outbreak of the American Civil War, and thus... no economic reason for countries in Europe to recognize the Confederate States of America formally, instead of taking a "wait and see" attitude, there would be another country on the landmass today. It would have had to have happened in the first two years when Lincoln was tiptoeing around the Slavery issue.

Point being... revolution or lack thereof is often determined by externalities as much as it's determined by the people fighting directly for or against it.

What the externalities might be that would get the DHS/TSA tossed out of power politically, I can't predict.
 
SCCutler said:
FTFY.

The use of "Homeland" in the agency name was chilling from the git-go - sounds completely inconsistent with our essential way of life.
Click to expand...

You thinking about "Vaterland"?

Godwinned again.
 
SCCutler said:
FTFY.

The use of "Homeland" in the agency name was chilling from the git-go - sounds completely inconsistent with our essential way of life.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The term, however, is very appropriate for what this nation of mostly lazy cowards has become - the most authoritarian regime of the Western world. They must feel lucky that people here generally know nothing about history... :(
 
A friend of mine went to the Houston Rodeo last week. He told me that he saw some TSA agents there. I assume they were there to keep the Rodeo safe from terrorists.
 
MadseasoN said:
A friend of mine went to the Houston Rodeo last week. He told me that he saw some TSA agents there. I assume they were there to keep the Rodeo safe from terrorists.
Click to expand...

They were just studying how to move sheep and cattle through the security lines faster. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
They were just studying how to move sheep and cattle through the security lines faster. ;)
Click to expand...


Now, that is funny right there... I don't care who you are.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:.

Ps.. The sad part is Nate is probably correct.:yesnod::yesnod::eek:
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
No easy answers my friend. Unfortunately, the media has made it nearly impossible for the "average" person to run for much of anything,
Click to expand...

The spate of recent "campaign finance reform," laws were really designed to make it impossible for anyone but the rich to run for office. The way donating to campaigns has been "limited" and the way super PACS have been lazered out of the laws, leaves just one result, mega money controls all elections and everyone else is simple ruled.
 
PeterDudek said:
You might like this video which shows exactly how to get a metal object through the nude body scanners and why the TSA is an EPIC FAILURE:

http://youtu.be/olEoc_1ZkfA
Click to expand...

That story just gets better and better....

YouTube (owned by Google) apparently has censored the video at someone's behest (put behind an age-wall) - I have not verified to see if this story is true: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11120-youtube-censors-anti-tsa-video

And the TSA has, apparently, "cautioned" some mainstream media against publishing the story... http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.c...hreatens-mainstream-media-not-to-cover-story/
 
wsuffa said:
That story just gets better and better....

YouTube (owned by Google) apparently has censored the video at someone's behest (put behind an age-wall) - I have not verified to see if this story is true: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11120-youtube-censors-anti-tsa-video

And the TSA has, apparently, "cautioned" some mainstream media against publishing the story... http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.c...hreatens-mainstream-media-not-to-cover-story/
Click to expand...

Reposted everywhere. Thanks for the links.
 
dmspilot said:
But even if it had been an option, it wouldn't have happened because the majority votes wouldn't have been there.
Click to expand...

Yes, the great fathers of America...imposing "freedom" on a populace who did not want it. Nice that things don't change over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top