Security vs Liberty

I agree completely Ted (but am the lone voice of reason over in the other thread )

:D

It's funny that we are free to carry here in PA and WV and do -- frequently!!-- and yet there are no nightmare high-noon scenarios to report.

Somehow we all lose our minds when we stroll down a jetway, I suppose.
 
ORD is unworkable. Just try and make a 1/2 hour connection when you arrive on B and depart on C. Not one of my favorite airports. But, it's not alone on my "dislike" list.

A 1/2 hour connection isn't legal at ANY airport, that I am aware of. FWIW, I have made it from M19 international to C 31 domestic in 30 minutes twice. B to C is no big deal.

Most of the time.
 
I agree completely Ted (but am the lone voice of reason over in the other thread )

:D

I'm not exactly ultra-conservative. There are actually certain things that Migaldi and I agree on politically. But the misconception that it is the government's responsibility to protect us really, really needs to stop.

The police and law authorities are there to maintain general order. Personal protection is the job of the individual, either through personal means or through hiring of a bodyguard (which is also personal means).

It's funny that we are free to carry here in PA and WV and do -- frequently!!-- and yet there are no nightmare high-noon scenarios to report.

I'll start another thread on this. ;)

When I was in Indiana, I carried pretty much every time I went out. Ever needed the gun? Nope. But I've also never needed a seatbelt, never needed a motorcycle helmet, never needed anything for safety or protection.

Somehow we all lose our minds when we stroll down a jetway, I suppose.

I do think that a commercial airline represents a different environment than walking down the street. You have between a couple dozen and a couple hundred people in a confined space for a period of time. So, I can understand having some form of screening. We all screen who we put on planes we're flying to some degree. But there's logic and there's what we have.
 
However the individual airlines feel like doing it.

Airline screening will make TSA screening look simple and painless.

The TSA is protected by sovereign immunity.

The airlines will need to screen for every threat any jack-bleep can conceive, or the lawyers will own the airline. The TSA can just say "We made a policy decision that that threat was not credible." and they're free and clear.
 
Airline screening will make TSA screening look simple and painless.

The TSA is protected by sovereign immunity.

The airlines will need to screen for every threat any jack-bleep can conceive, or the lawyers will own the airline. The TSA can just say "We made a policy decision that that threat was not credible." and they're free and clear.

Free market. The ones that make it worse than it is now will fail. Let it work itself out, and give them immunity in regards to that just like the TSA. The ones that have a fair balance will survive. Although, me personally, I don't count on anyone else to protect me, so I would probably fly the one with no security. Just give me a seat in the back of the plane so I can see everything going on in front of me.
 
New poll

Americans by a 2-1 margin support the use of naked-image full-body x-ray scanners in airport security lines, but fewer than half back aggressive new pat-down procedures – and opposition to both rises among those most affected: people who fly with any frequency.

Overall results in this ABC News/Washington Post poll mark the public’s longstanding emphasis on security over privacy. Sixty-four percent support the use of the scanning machines, even though they produce x-ray images of a passenger’s unclothed body that security officials can see. Half as many are opposed, and “strong” supporters outnumber strong opponents, also by 2-1.
 
Back
Top