Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 3
Got tired of the last thread, but I have enough info to write a book on the subject. But iyt got me to thinking about the TSA as a response to 9/11

The TSA was created a couple of months after 9/11 2001 by the Bush Jr administration response to the 9/11 attacks. It started off flailing in every direction before settling down into the organization that we see today. If you have travelled before and after the TSA you can see the difference. Before it was just a passport check on exit, now it is empty pockets, take off shoes and belt, full person scan, pat down if needed, luggage x-ray, prohibited items in trash, liquids in a clear bag, swabs for explosives. You know the drill. Once part that you may have a second screening depending on the airline policy (think El-Al)

The TSA still modifies its drill based on new threats that are found by everyone can now relax securely in the knowledge that the plane is safe. Well safe from passengers that is. Cargo is a different matter, for a long time there was no simple means of checking it, and even now it is often not used. Then there is ground staff, tough to pernitrate but once in, the possibilities are endless. You also have to consider the security previous landing points, could they have slipped something on board, as was the case with Lockerbie.

Since 9/11 there have been no other successful events, but people have tried. So is TSA doing well or are they just lucky. I think it is a mixture of both. An most are accepting of the TSA intrusion on our travel plans.

If you look at it from Bin Laden's perspective, if he has one at the bottom of the sea, the 9/11 were wildly successful. His group executed a terrible deed that was both spectacular audiations, but the after effect was even more spectacular. A multi year war in Afghanistan and the world forever burdened with the new cost of securing travel.

This analogy mirrors gun control in many ways. But the most obvious is that responsible travelers accept the inconvenience as a necessity to travel. Similarly responsible gun owners should be amenable to some inconvenience as a necessity to ownership. This should be the starting point for discussion on gun control. Like air travel is a matter of group rights where all passengers are a member of the group and responsible the outcome of the group. Gun owners must take responsibility for the gun group as a whole and participate to come up with novel solutions that help reduce the problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
BobD:"But the most obvious is that responsible travelers accept the inconvenience as a necessity to travel. Similarly responsible gun owners should be amenable to some inconvenience as a necessity to ownership. "

Once again, you come up with silly analogies.

You can actually take your gun with you on a flight. You merely check it as a 'firearm' at baggage check in. It gets special treatment. It gets handed to you at your destination.

Traveling by airplane is also an option and there is no guarantee you can even fly. Terrorists aren't allowed to fly. (Just like felons aren't legally able to posses guns).

There is no constitutional amendment on flying. There is on firearms possession.

And no, the only 'inconvenience' most gun owners will tolerate is QUICK background check at point of sale for new/used guns from a federally licensed dealer. In most cases, this is conducted within 15 minutes, often 3-5 minutes after you fill out the on-line form and hit the enter button.

And to bring back your silly previous analogy, you don't need a special 'license' to fly. Take a pysch test. Who knows? You might go bonkers on a flight and strangle someone? When was the last time your 'mental state' was 'evaluated' before an airplane flight?

And you have yet to show how ONE MILLION psychological background checks could be done EACH year? As if, there wouldn't be 'doc mills' where you were in and out in five minutes with your 'form' to buy a gun, if there was such a stupid law.

Maybe the same test for drivers? Heck, speeders kill folks. Folks who are thinking about something else kill people with inattention. We need to constantly monitor your 'state of mind'. right? Jilted boyfriend/girlfriend? Horrors - don't be anywhere near them on the road....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know an old salt who likes to point out the army is always fighting the last war.

Put another way, once the politicians realize a risk exists--usually responding to disaster--they are generous with resources to address it. As always it takes govt a while to get cranked up (as with Covid testing and vaccinations) but eventually they usually get there. Even with bells and whistles.

Binladen seems to have been well aware of this tendency. A well executed creative attack may well succeed. But will be addressed (urgently on the govt timescale) closing the vulnerabilities--making follow-up attacks more difficult.

One would hope for think tanks that try to anticipate vulnerabilities and address them before they yield disasters. But too often funding is lacking until the issue makes front page news.

This is a large vulnerability that changes constantly. It's tough to cover all the bases.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Once again, you come up with silly analogies.

Once again your lack of comprehension is truly astounding. All you do is squawk as to why things are impossible. Think like Alice and do three impossible things before breakfast

ANY YOU HAVE YET TO SHOW ANYWHERE THAT I SAID THAT PSYCOLOGICAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE A GOOD IDEA!
They are merely a point in time that could be irrelevant ten minutes later. They could be useful on a much higher level to reach out to people who could be potential suicides or felons, but as a purchase criteria USELESS

Take a page out of the TSA handbook and stretch that underused little grey cells and you may come up with something like "SA pre-approved". You know the little ID card that lets you skip most of the lines and get on the plane. Your probable response "But there are no lines in gun stores" Doh said Homer

What does TSA pre-approved mean? It means that you have been profiled and that you don't match the profiles of "bad" people. It does not mean that you not try to blow up a plane. It means that you are unlikely to do so, thereby letting the TSA focus more resources on those who have not been voluntarily vetted. What would that look like to gun owners?

Could it mean something like "responsible gun owners" can apply to be preapproved and if so approved that will not have to forego any future "onerous" checks on ownership. I don't know, I think it is up to responsible gun owners to come up with the definition of responsible.

Of course, you could always stick your head up your keista and say that it is "My constitutional right", which it is at the moment. That is until a some left leaning court trained in English decides that they interpreted it the meaning of the following wrong:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Personally I do not see how you can divorce the first two parts from the third, especially in such a well thought out and precise document. As I read it, you can have a gun if you are in a well regulated state militia and the purpose of the gun is to protect the security of a free State.

I challenge you to give that sentence to any 12-14 year old English student and ask the to parse it and explain its meaning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Personally I do not see how you can divorce the first two parts from the third"

Personally, your opinion doesn't matter.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue and private gun ownership is covered under the Second Amendment.

End of discussion.

- -----

"Take a page out of the TSA handbook and stretch that underused little grey cells and you may come up with something like "TSA pre-approved". You know the little ID card that lets you skip most of the lines and get on the plane."

Yeah, for what, $100 and filling out a simple form, you get to skip the line. Do they do a pysch test - ha ha - no. Do they check if you're a drug user? nope - no way to do that.

In another couple months, I won't even have to take off my shoes - I'm at that age going through TSA checks.....but I haven't been on an airplane in likely five years - maybe 10 now.....too much hassle and I'd rather drive.

All that little green card means you're a frequent flyer - and you pay $$$ for the privilege of skipping the line. So?

And of course, with 300 million guns already out there, growing at 1 million or more a year...... 'new' guns are the least of the problems for you to worry about.

You're more likely to be mowed down by a drunk or drug-high driver...... or stabbed by a drug crazy robber ...... or mugged and severely injured by having someone clobber you from the rear with a blackjack. I'd worry about that a lot more.

30,000 plus died in car accidents last year - half caused by drunk drivers. I haven't seen you on the bandwagon to lock up drunk drivers for years to get them off the road, have I? taken away their cars? Nope. Put all sorts of interlocks on their cars? Maybe even given them annual tests to see if they are still boozing it up? You know, 'addiction tests - pysch tests'. Hmmm...just think we could save TENS OF THOUSANDS of lives and there is no constitutional protection for 'drunk or impaired drivers'.

Why do you focus on a few deaths a year instead of the TENS OF THOUSANDS? Curious minds want to know!



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue and private gun ownership is covered under the Second Amendment. End of discussion.

There you go. Sticking your head in the sand. Maybe read about the discussions of the Federalists and Anti Federalists and the compromise they came to.
The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion: So end of discussion. RIGHT
But if that were the case, why would you try to stack he court with right wing judges. Is it possible to change or was this just another whopper that you swallowed. All it takes is a couple of liberals or literal constitionalists, and your end of discussion is toast. Note, of the recent judges appointed on the right, all point to Constitutionalism as a core philosophy but all were selected because they checked the gun rights box too.

My position on drunken driving is extreme. Zero tolerance as posted here but I will repeat it lest you cant navigate the link:

Drunken driving has still some way to go to catch up with other (countries) records one the problems
Best practice: Blow into bag, if over the limit, blood test, if first offence : Go straight to jail, do not pass go, see you in two weeks. Refuse the test: Go straight to jail, do not pass go, see you in two weeks. Got a medical condition that explains the situation but don't have your card on you : Go straight to jail, do not pass go, see you in two weeks. Second offence , see you in four weeks: , Third offence : , see you in eight weeks, license gone car in the crusher. Fourth offence : no jail WOW. Car and driver in the crusher. Yeh I made the last two up. Punishment is not as good a deterrent as the certainty of punishment

https://boards.fool.com/same-as-seat-belts-its-against-my-ri....

30,000 plus died in car accidents last year. 45,000 died due to guns (Test: which number is bigger)
A cars primary purpose is not to be rammed into crowds. If it were I am sure everyone would agree that they should be banned.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue and private gun ownership is covered under the Second Amendment.

Didn't they rule that "the people" means exactly the same thing in the 2nd Amendment that it means in the 1st and 4th?

So if we can be required to beg government permission to own a firearm, and that's okay, we can be required to beg government permission to ask our representatives to make the government stop fouling something up. Or to ask the police to not search our property without permission or warrant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"We the people", interestingly the constitution never defines who "the people" are. As a result there has been a continuous change in its meaning based on the current social landscape and the context in which it is used in the constitution. Its use in the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments is similar but SC justices over time have argued the differences.

The most obvious change to "the people" came when slaves and women were included as "people", while landownership was dropped as a requisite. So the definition is a moving target

The use of "the people" also varies by context. Article 1 Section 2 which covers election of house members, gives rise to the census, where the "people is" interpreted as everyone residing in the district, legal or illegal not being a consideration. So theoretically a congressman represents all the people in his district, legal or not, regardless of anything to do with voting.

Here is a paper on the subject, rather lengthy and quite ironic in places
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion: So end of discussion. RIGHT - BobsDonuts

----------------

I don;t want to start yet another abortion debate bit I agree, it is "stare decisis".

But having said that, I must point out that the right to an abortion in not mentioned in the constitution whereas the right to gun ownership is. That is an important distinction that you conveniently ignore.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"So theoretically a congressman represents all the people in his district, legal or not, regardless of anything to do with voting."

Absolutely....and of course, minors can't vote..nor illegals...but they are 'counted' in the census and the number of House members from each state is determined by the census.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't want to start yet another abortion debate bit I agree, it is "stare decisis".
But having said that, I must point out that the right to an abortion in not mentioned in the constitution whereas the right to gun ownership is. That is an important distinction that you conveniently ignore

I have no interest in getting into abortion too, but it is far from "stare decisis" in the opinion of many people (and judges). The point being that nothing is ever really settled, while there is an element of interpretation. The two instances guns & abortions both fall into that category. On is mentions in the constitution with obvious linguistic ambiguity, the other falls under individual rights which also yields multiple interpretations on the same subject. The point being that neither of them are settled and are subject to political change.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I must point out that the right to an abortion in not mentioned in the constitution whereas the right to gun ownership is. That is an important distinction that you conveniently ignore

It's included in the right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects.
Print the post Back To Top