Bush had it right when he banned air travel, nobody's rights were violated by searches during that month.

A lot of the complaining is ridiculously extreme.   I got sucked into a thread on a guy who brought a boat from Canada, and there was an error on his paperwork, and he refused to sign it, and get this: they didn't let him go home and mail in the customs declaration!

They stole his boat!  He got it back when he signed the corrected paperwork, but they stole it!

Nineeleveneses!! Nineelevenses!  Curse you DHS, we hates it, we hates it forever!!!

The fact that US customs works that way on the Canuck border since forever, is just not the point!

BTW I was not Ridiculously extreme, I was absolutely right: the ban on air travel violated nobody's rights.

If I have the right to an easement over your head without asking you or fulfilling government conditions, I'm gonna get some weather balloons and sell storage space in floating lockers.  Imagine the advantage I'll have over traditional storage facilities that have to rent land.  I'll just hover in the free air that nobody has the right to interdict, and if you don't like it you're a fascist.  Thbbpptt.

"Robur's Hawkmen Storage Kingdom" has a nice ring

Who cares about the security of passengers?  They're dead when they board.  You know that.  If the plane is hijacked and the passengers can't recover it, it's going to be blown up.  You know that.

Airport security is about the security of people on the ground, who'll never see the threat coming until it's too late to run.   The whole "civil rights" argument about airport security misses them, somehow.  When exactly did the population of the USA who is not flying on an airplane, agree to be totally vulnerable to a terrorist attack, so 400 people could get across the country faster with less hassle?  I maintain WE didn't.  I sure didn't.  Again, if air is free, I'm going to go use it for storage without asking you for permission.

TSA is trying to expand to sports games, conventions, trucking traffic, and more. Fortunately their 185 armored vehicles and 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition purchases are slowing them down in hiring new agents.

Justin Bieber concerts can't fly into skyscrapers at 500 mph.

I suppose you'll go rip the fire alarms off schools that haven't burned down, since they violate the rights of students not to form up like Jews at Auschwitz just because some authority pulls a lever.

You lie.
You tell a deliberate falsehood in order to mislead.
The underwear bomber was an attack, the times square bombing was an attack, the fort hood shooting was an attack.
I've mentioned them before so I know this is a deliberate falsehood.

You haven't listened.

Ban air travel.

That balances your right not to be searched and my right not to be hit by an airplane.  I have that right, and I won't give it up for your convenience.  You assume - based on authority - that I WILL accept your valuation of the risk, and I WILL die if necessary to get you there overnight.  I won't.

NO THEY HAD A PLANE!!!  Hijacking a bus can't kill 40,000 people.

Of course it counts.  I mention the fire alarms because you are insisting that a present danger that doesn't actually kill people is not allowed to count for anything.

So don't fly.  I don't give you permission to fly overhead without being searched.

And no American psychiatrist has ever shot up an Army base.
Oh wait.  He did.

Actually you don't know that, but I suspect it will be demonstrated now that the TSA has gone gonzo and allowed knives.

We provided the plane, Mr. Yell. So now you're proposing we bomb ourselves?

The Fort Hood shooter massacred people as a result of politically correct oversight not doing its job and a gun-free zone. Without that PC bullshit he'd have pulled out his gun and gotten blown away, which is the fitting end to all murderous psychopaths' lives. The problems resulting in that massacre weren't a lack of bombings and invasions a world away. Anyone who thinks so is mentally limited and literally insane. Hell, the bombings were his sole motivation to hate the US military and want to kill as many of its member as possible. Clearly, the problem was not enough bombings!

As always, you're completely ignoring how ineffective these measures you accept are at preventing similar attacks in the future. You're accepting literally anything that's forced upon you by a government that wants you helpless and accepting of anything, including a literal hand down your kids' pants. You sound a little too scared and a little too irrational.

"Airport Body Scanners Catch Drugs, Not Explosives; 80-Plus People Hid Illegal Items Nationwide This Year, TSA Says"
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley … tch_dr.php

A little how-to guide! "How To Get Illegal Items Through the Airport"
http://snallabolaget.com/?page_id=506

"Gaping Holes in Airline Security: Loaded Gun Slips Past TSA Screeners"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gu … d=12412458

I can find dozens more, but you've explicitly stated that you don't care if these measures work, so long as they violate my family's fourth amendment rights and sexually assault them as well. Not everyone enjoys a government worker's hands on them as much as you seem to.

I didn't say we shouldn't be afraid of lunatics ignored by our politically correct military bureaucracy enabled by "gun free zones." That was the only incident which resulted in deaths or injuries (other than to the terrorist himself in the case of the guy burning off his own junk).

The other two "examples" you gave were of new regulations and authorities preventing nothing.

You're just being completely dishonest now in addition to refusing to respond to any of my points, ever. Whining and dishonesty doesn't change the fact that you don't have a single example of new regulations and the sexual assaults you endorse preventing a single attack, death, or injury. They've caught literally nothing.

2/3 of your examples we should be terrified of were inept idiots, one stopped by civilians after he had already failed and grievously injured himself. The other example is completely unrelated to air travel/security at all, was committed by an American, and could have been stopped with decent military oversight and an armed populace (which was not present, on a military base of all places, for his massacre).

You can't respond to anything I've said. So you whine and lie, "ooo he said he doesn't care about murder!" Yeah, whatever. All points conceded. Discussion, which you never engaged in, concluded.

I've never claimed that terrorism isn't real, terrible, or doesn't warrants fighting.

I've pointed out specifically that most of your supposed examples warranting supposed anti-terrorism measures, personnel, departments, and regulations are not examples of such regulations/personnel stopping attacks, nor of cases where the regulations/personnel you support would have stopped attacks.

You're not even responding to what I said. I've already responded to literally everything you're saying. I've made points and raised questions which you're completely oblivious to. You haven't even attempted to refute or disagreed with anything I've said.

NOTHING you support in DHS policy would have stopped the Cole attack. It's completely irrelevant. This is over your head.

NOTHING you support in DHS policy would have stopped the first WTC bombing. It's completely irrelevant. This is over your head.

The 9/11 WTC attack was done with box cutters. Worse weapons have been smuggled past TSA security (DHS regulations/policy which you support) and I've linked you such stories. There are many more easily accessible such stories on these interwebs if you wish to learn more. The measures you're supporting here obviously aren't successfully stopping another 9/11 style attack--another such attack hasn't been attempted.

If you want to keep vaguely responding as if I approve of terrorism, go for it. I'm not going to presume anyone else reading this forum is so illiterate as to think that from what I've said.

Additionally, the list of points and arguments I've made which you've never attempted to refute or argue against is so lengthy at this point that it'd be tedious to list them all. You've conceded every point, refusing to state where and why you disagree with any of them. This "discussion," which you've mostly refused to take any part in, is obviously over.

2/7/2013     USA     Buena Vista, NJ     2     0     A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

btw that just happened last month

Oh? I dare you to name said regulations.

Give it a good try.

I triple dog dare you.

Einstein, are you alright? You didn't know that government workers didn't grope, sexually abuse, and irradiate people in the past? Why are you disagreeing with me when you're admittedly unaware of what you're talking about?

The Yell, we have no need to be afraid of inept bombers who harm nobody but themselves and are stopped by civilians without government aid.

Sure, we should keep stopping them. Sure, we should reevaluate if new laws would help us combat them. But failed idiots stopped by civilians are not reasons to accept any and all laws supposedly aimed at combating terrorism.

You absolutely refuse to evaluate the effectiveness of laws and regulations. You blindly love all authority. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge the fact that these new regulations and TSA employees haven't stopped a single attack.

You're just whining. You "totally" disagree with me in that you refuse to actually read or respond to what I say. You're just broadly dishonestly accusing me of claiming that terrorism isn't real when I point out facts regarding its extreme rarity. Your only statements of disagreement are the broadest, vaguest, "I disagree with everything you say" statements. You literally refuse to specify one single thing I've said that you disagree with.

I question how much terrorists really want to hurt us when they literally show no interest in countless ways they could do horrendous harm to our society and people's lives. You refuse to respond to this point in any way. For asking this question, you make up false claims that I don't care when violence is committed. But you fail to respond to the pont.

Good luck with your quest to get air travel banned. An alternative would be to not passify citizens to the point that box cutters are sufficient to take over an entire commercial aircraft. Unlike your idea, it's actually conceivable that it can be accomplished.