• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

TSA scanners and Islam

British Airways, Delta, Jetblue, etc...are private corporations. If they want you to go through a body scanner before you get on their plane...suck it up.

Or walk to your destination.

A ticket for a bus, train, or plane, is a contract. You agree to abide by the rules of the contract.
 
Last edited:
British Airways, Delta, Jetblue, etc...are private corporations. If they want you to go through a body scanner before you get on their plane...suck it up.

Or walk to your destination.

A ticket for a bus, train, or plane, is a contract. You agree to abide by the rules of the contract.

I agree with the contract part. This really has nothing to do with what the private transportation companies are requiring however. This is about government action. The will of the electorate. If I see something I disagree with I am going to speak mind, even preemptively. Hope that by adding my voice to the din I help strengthen the position I stand behind and I get what I want.
 
British Airways, Delta, Jetblue, etc...are private corporations. If they want you to go through a body scanner before you get on their plane...suck it up.

Or walk to your destination.

A ticket for a bus, train, or plane, is a contract. You agree to abide by the rules of the contract.

That would apply if we were talking about security measures applied by the airlines, but these are imposed from the top down by the government and TSA.

The whole idea of the freedom to contract rests on the fact that the two parties agree. In this case, the federal government is interfering and adding their own terms to that contract.

If Mcdonalds wanted to put up body scanners, then I could go to Burgerking. But, as businesses, they would be setting them up for their own interests, as is their right. TSA regulations propose to be done in our interests, by our representatives in government, so it's not akin to a business practice we don't like, it's akin to a law we don't like.

Even with the strict screening in place already, the underwear bomber still got through, investigators have still managed to get bombs through, and anyone with a little time on their hands could easily use a laptop to smuggle in knives etc etc. It seems very clear that these efforts are merely security theater, not in the end representing our interests at all.
 
But try to walk naked at the airport and you get arrested too... there's just no pleasing some people.
 
i can't bring a gun on an airplane. doesn't this violate my 2nd Amendment rights?

:)
 
i can't bring a gun on an airplane. doesn't this violate my 2nd Amendment rights?

:)

I find this to be a reasonable restriction exchange for the safety provided. Perhaps I am biased in my comfort of growing up with this situation. I am willing to discuss the possibility I am wrong and that this restriction should be lifted.

Currently I am under the assumption that gunfire is likely to depressurize the cabin. Am I false in holding this assumption I have held unchallenged?
 
I find this to be a reasonable restriction exchange for the safety provided. Perhaps I am biased in my comfort of growing up with this situation. I am willing to discuss the possibility I am wrong and that this restriction should be lifted.

Currently I am under the assumption that gunfire is likely to depressurize the cabin. Am I false in holding this assumption I have held unchallenged?
.
Mythbusters tried this and showed it's no big deal.
Many years ago a large aerodynamic fairing was removed from the roof at the rear of our #1 L-1011 Tristar.
It had been installed with many rivets.
The next test flight after this removal was for the purpose of measuring the aft cabin noise without this fairing installed.
We could hear a high-pitched whistle in the area, and tracked it down to the holes in the cabin roof, where the rivets had been removed, but -nothing- installed to fill the holes!
(Some of our mechanics and inspectors weren't of the highest quality.) :(
Sum total of the area of the holes was much larger than any bullet could have made, and other than the whistling noise there was no effect on the airplane.
Goldfinger being squeezed out the broken window was just artistic license.
 
They who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

—Benjamin Franklin—​
If we were talking about freedom of speech or a fair trial under law I would agree with you completely.

If we are talking about the freedom to hide stuff in your clothing on an aeroplane then, no, I don't thing Benji would have regarded that as an essential freedom either.
 
Interesting. There might be other reasonables explanations for restricting firearms in this way, I actual support restricting them from schools in general, but this certainly put doubt into my mind as to the necessity for this restriction. Thank you.
 
air travel is not a right.
subways are not a right.
buses are not a right.

if those who run these forms of mass-transit wanna search people for bombs, you either play along..or walk.
So then we could have airline companies for "Muslims only"? Or perhaps "White Supremacy Air"?

Look on the bright side.
If all Muslims refuse to fly, the number of Muslim influenced terror events will drop to zero.
How many would that be?
All of them?
And perhaps we could have separate buildings for Muslims to work in as well. And while we're at it, we shouldn't allow middle-aged, overweight females into public hospitals (they are most likely to abduct an infant). They should have their own hospitals.

But it's not like we wouldn't all still be equal. We'd be separate, but equal.

I am "poking" somewhat, but in all seriousness ... what people seem to fail to realize is that an airplane is essentially a flying missile. The airplane itself is a weapon. A person hijacking a bus or a car can do a lot of damage ... as can someone on a subway train, etc. But 9/11 did change certain dynamics of travel, turning an airplane into a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

Now, a car could be considered a weapon as well ... and it is precisely why we have various laws in place to govern the use of that weapon. In order to protect an individual from harming themselves, they have to wear seatbelts, and perhaps the vehicle has airbags in various locations, etc. Likewise, in order to protect others ... they are not allowed to be under the influence of alcohol/drugs, or talk on cell phones in school zones (at least in my city), etc etc. These are liberties that are applied across the board to ALL citizens.

The same goes for gun laws. And when certain individuals break the laws or compile a list of offenses, those liberties get taken away.

The problem with the airline, is that there are not BLANKET laws that apply to all, and so the ones we use now cannot be easily enforced without profiling. It is similar to a cop pulling over a beat up car driven by a minority in a wealthy pre-dom white neighborhood.

But if we understood that flying in a plane is essentially the same as stepping onto a missile and potential weapon, then we would welcome stricter regulations that applied to all of us. For example, since we cannot all decide on a uniform "flying apparel" that each one of us could wear when flying ... each one of us would have to go through the NudieView Machine. Not just some of us. We all have to wear seatbelts in cars, so we should all have to go through the machine. THAT will ensure more safety. Because then everyone will be checked. Not just some people. How safe is safe? Checking to make sure only 5% of the drivers on the road aren't drunk ... or checking 100%? Likewise, perhaps bomb dogs could sniff out each person ... each and every one. Or each and every person would have to get strip searched. Not just a few. Every person.

In theory, every person getting aboard that plane has the potential to turn the plane into a "WMD", and if we are so afraid that is going to happen if we were to get rid of our screening and shoe-removal and all that, then we should treat EVERY passenger accordingly, as though they were being handed a gun when they board the plane.
 
They who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

—Benjamin Franklin—​

If we were talking about freedom of speech or a fair trial under law I would agree with you completely.

If we are talking about the freedom to hide stuff in your clothing on an aeroplane then, no, I don't thing Benji would have regarded that as an essential freedom either.


I'm talking about the freedom to travel from state to state, from nation to nation, from continent to continent, without being forced to submit to what amounts to sexual assault as a condition of being allowed to so travel. I happen to think that this is quite an essential liberty.

I'm also talking about the right not to be treated as a criminal, absent any credible evidence that one has indeed committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Again, quite an essential liberty.

And I'm talking about “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”. If, in the absence of very strong evidence that such is necessary in my individual case, I can be forced to submit to what amounts to a virtual strip search, then I am not secure in my “person” against “unreasonable searches”, and my right to such security, as explicitly stated in the Fourth Amendment, is being violated.
 
But try to walk naked at the airport and you get arrested too... there's just no pleasing some people.
:D

I'd support full-body scanners if the people running them were naked, too. It's called solidarity. But oh no.
 
.
Mythbusters tried this and showed it's no big deal.


It's not "no big deal", it's just unlikely to lead to the aircraft breaking up. It will still cause depressurization, and if nothing is done immediately to address the situation, everyone on board will die.

The extent to which hull failure can cause an explosive decompression really isn't something that can be adequately predicted.

Aloha Airlines Flight 243 lost the entire upper section of its forward fuselage and landed safely.

United Airlines Flight 811 lost its entire cargo door, and the pilots managed to land it safely.

Meanwhile China Airlines Flight 611 suffered a mid-air break up after a crack appeared in the fuselage, and Pan Am Flight 103 disintegrated after a bomb blew a 20 inch hole in the hull.
 
I'm talking about the freedom to travel from state to state, from nation to nation, from continent to continent, without being forced to submit to what amounts to sexual assault as a condition of being allowed to so travel. I happen to think that this is quite an essential liberty.

I'm also talking about the right not to be treated as a criminal, absent any credible evidence that one has indeed committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Again, quite an essential liberty.

And I'm talking about “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”. If, in the absence of very strong evidence that such is necessary in my individual case, I can be forced to submit to what amounts to a virtual strip search, then I am not secure in my “person” against “unreasonable searches”, and my right to such security, as explicitly stated in the Fourth Amendment, is being violated.
Your baggage is already virtually searched. Do you object to that too? What constitutes "unreasonable"?

And it is hardly a strip search - it is not as though they can see body outlines or wobbly bits - it is just an idealised outline of a human body.
 
Does anyone think Ben Franklin was actually advocating lawless anarchy with that quote?

Does anyone think that flying in a jetliner is an "essential liberty?"

Does anyone who thinks it is also advocate doing away with drivers licenses as infringing on their "liberty?"

Am I the only one who thinks these scanners are no big deal and will have no problem them?

Has the whole world just up and gone completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane?
 
I'm talking about the freedom to travel from state to state, from nation to nation, from continent to continent, without being forced to submit to what amounts to sexual assault as a condition of being allowed to so travel. I happen to think that this is quite an essential liberty.
:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom