Slashdot Mirror
TSA Union Calls For Armed Guards At Every Checkpoint
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Brian Tumulty writes at USA Today that the union representing airport screeners for the Transportation Security Administration says Friday's fatal shooting of an agent at Los Angeles International Airport highlights the need for armed security officers at every airport checkpoint. The screeners, who earn up to $30,000 annually, have not requested to carry guns themselves, but they do want an armed security officer present at every checkpoint says J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents the screeners. "Every local airport has its own security arrangement with local police to some type of contract security force," says Cox. "There is no standardization throughout the country. Every airport operates differently. Obviously at L.A. there were a fair number of local police officers there." Congress may investigate the issue but Sen. Tom Carper, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, says that "there will be an appropriate time — after all the facts have been gathered and thoughtfully analyzed —to review existing policy and procedure to see what, if anything, can be learned from this unfortunate incident to help prevent future tragedies." TSA officials say that they don't anticipate a change in the agency security posture at the moment, but "passengers may see an increased presence of local law enforcement officers throughout the country.""
There are already armed cops (real cops, not TSA thugs) at every security checkpoint I've been to except one particular small airport, where he was in the lobby since there was no room, or nead, between the xray and the airplane.
The only way to professionalize (the Presecurity Checkpoint Security Agents) is to federalize.
In five years, expect to have the Pre-presecurity checkpoint and those new federal employees.
I think this is a good idea. If/when future similar incidents occur, all those that are NOT carrying a firearm will be secondary targets. The poor guy who's carrying is just going to be the first guy shot, giving everyone else a slight chance to duck and hide.
Let's give guns to a bunch of untrained overpaid mouthbreathers with power trip issues!
What could go wrong with that!
If they do this... I give it 6 months till the TSA 'guard' shoots some kid for pretty much no reason.
It's not the TSA, it's the union representing the TSA screeners.
"Excellent" idea. In next installment they'll rename into "Civil Protection" or "Metrocops". HL2 becomes reality at least in this dystopian way.
This doesn't solve any problem, and instead only gives the TSA more power. Do you really want ARMED TSA agents there to intimidate people more than the run-of-the-mill TSA goons do now?
...armed gunman opens fire on unarmed targets, and the logical response is to request that his targets be allowed to arm themselves to fend off future attacks of a similar nature. Remind me again why it's practically impossible for me to purchase a handgun to defend myself in California?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The solution is obviously... more guns.
Maybe reexamine the way mental illness is treated and use the money improve.
Maybe the TSA should just kill every passenger right away as a preventive measure. That would be a logical extension of current policy and it might even be more humane.
Kind of like how like how the Prison gaurds union oppose reform of drug laws. Because they are representing the gaurds and their jobs, and they would be hurt by any sane policy.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Just get rid of the TSA.
is the enemy.
Isn't that like saying it's not the driver who knocked me over, rather the car...?
There would be fewer TSA targets if the TSA was disbanded.
Umm, doubt it. Until every person entering an airport has their own personal guard assigned to them, and frisks their victim - I mean, passenger - down before entry, no one will be 100% safe. Maybe not even then - who knows how stable that armed guard is? TSA has gotten just a little too self-important, particularly when you stop to consider just how ineffective they are.
Not only do we not need TSA to be armed, we also need to disarm police everywhere. I'm tired of innocent people being murdered by yet another trigger happy cop.
Isn't the union representing the screeners? MY question is - who gets the kickback for the contract on the new armed guards? It's unthinkable that no one will. How about hiring Blackwater? They seemed pretty good at shooting civilians.
Yeah, all those armed guards at the post office really stopped all the shootings there. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Derp.
No thanks.
--- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
So if there's a mall shooting the solution is armed guards in every mall? If there's a school shooting the solution is armed guards in every school? Every bus station, train station, subway station, park and so on until there's a whole army of armed guards running around? The point of the secuity control is that nobody gets to bring anything on board to crash or hijack the plane and in that respect, mission accomplished. It's not a general defense against a random person pulling out a gun and opening fire, not any more than any other place.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In order to protect the TSA agents, the TSA should be disbanded. You can't shoot what's not there!
--- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
TSA has been looking for an excuse to arm it's people. Watch them try to turn this incident into that excuse. Mind you, arming ex-hamburger flippers will endanger the public more than protect it, but arming TSA goons would be a huge step in proper bureaucratic empire building.
Want protection from nutcases? Sorry, that's not gonna happen - in a nation of more than 300 million people, there will always be nutcases.
Want to reduce the target-rich environment that is the TSA checkpoint? That's easy, get rid of TSA and let the airports and airlines deal with security.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What they need to do is fix the real issues with check points. Get rid of the security theater, the 3.4 oz fluid limits, the shoes removals, the body scanners, the biggest of all being the understaffing of the checkpoints that allow the mass lines that would attract a terrorist to begin with and so on. Start training the TSA on real security measures and start teach training them on profiling. When's the last time you heard about an Isreali plane being hijacked - and they let you bring a pocket-knife on board?
The problem with the TSA isn't the members of the TSA, they are doing what they are trained to do. The problem is that Congress is overseeing the TSA and allowing politics to trump security. It's like getting mad at the IRS when the IRS is only doing what congress told them to do. Get mad at congress for giving them the byzantine rules to begin with.
The TSA should be staffed by real armed Federal Officers, with real training, and real skills. Start by phasing in the replacement of the current supervisors with real officers and work your way from there. The next thing they should do is follow the Federal Reserve model and make the TSA semi-independent from regular politics so that they can focus more on security and less on politics.
The day the color codes, shoes removals, 3.4 oz removals and similar useless rules go and get replaced by having the (usually unmanned) additional screening checkpoints getting opened up is the day you know the TSA has finally started to get security.
You know, where the iconic mark of the Eastern Bloc was armed security guards everywhere.
I can't wait to see all the negligent discharges that will occur. Unfortunately the fat, child molesting, unqualified meter maids will take out a small child. None of them are LEO qualified much less allowed to look weapons and touch people.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Wait until you arm them. Now 6 year old kids can watch their mothers get guns pointed in their faces while being groped.
The TSA has not demonstrated why it should remain in existence. In fact it has demonstrated it has no place in a free society.
Its record on stopping real dangers is non-existent
Its attitude towards people's basic rights indicate that it believes it does not have to comply with the 1st and 4th amendments.
It is a sink hole for taxpayer dollars with nothing to show for it.
The bottom line is that as far as its record goes it has little if any redeeming value.
If we follow the logic through to the end, everybody, everywhere needs an armed guard; just in case the lunatic-du-jour decides that's where he wants to kill people.
Marathon runs obviously need an armed guard every 10 yards along the course. We have proof that terrorists see marathon runs as a target!
No sig today...
If the LAX shooter had been interested in mowing down passengers instead of TSA agents, then armed guards at the TSA checkpoints would have done nothing to protect those passengers. At LAX in places like Terminal 3, the lines to the security checkpoints can flow out of the building and onto the sidewalk creating a massive concentration of terrorist targets. Protecting them 100% with armed guards would require 10 times the number of agents that are currently employed. Providing armed guards at the checkpoints themselves only protects those around the checkpoints i.e. the TSA agents themselves.
If anything the best way to protect the passengers is to process them from the street and into the secured terminal at a faster pace, which would require a huge increase in TSA checkpoints. This is an inherently parallelizable task, but would require money to be spent. But terminals in places such as LAX aren't designed for such parallel operations. Using Terminal 3 as an example, you enter from street level then go up a flight of stairs/escalator, following an S-shaped path that snakes around back on itself before arriving at the security checkpoint. Once there, there is only enough room for 2 or 3 parallel operations at once.
BTW last time I was flying out of Orlando I encountered a private company that would sell you the ability to jump to the front of the TSA queue. So instead of building out the infrastructure to better accommodate the passengers in light of having to go through the TSA, the airport grants a license to this company to exploit the frustrations and $$ of the people in the queue. (Which is turn pisses off the other passengers who experience smug people pushing in front of them in the queue and highlighting of how class based US society is).
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's not the TSA, it's the union representing the TSA screeners.
Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.
A trade union consting of TSA employees: evil in its purest form.
When you treat everyone as a criminal, you shouldn't be surprised when something like this happens.
And now that it has happened, you can justify using even more force/hiring more people.
It's a wonderfully self-fulfilling prophecy
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Not even close. Think about it. The Union is NOT the TSA.
...we even have a video game for it called Papers please!. Get it from steam to preview how your TSA screenings will be in the near future.
Not a bear in sight.
I personally love how if we americans demand to arm our selves from protection we are somehow the bad guys in the eyes of the government, yet when one of their own gets shot its time to arm up! hypocrisy at its best people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
+1
Country of lunatics.
The screeners, who earn up to $30,000 annually
And note that it says *UP TO* $30,000 annually. Looks like this particular security theater pays their actors about the same as the night shift at my local McDonalds. Probably explains why they look like the same crowd.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
No FUCK YOU. We have a second amendment right to be fully armed at all times.
Wait, hold on a second... Why the fuck is a government agency unionized in the first place?
People are getting killed, killed by drivers driving over red lights into crossing traffic. If we had a guy with a bazooko at every traffic light, he could take out those cars which are obviously not going to stop in time otherwise.
This is going to make the roads so much safer.
Can I get a patent on it?
Now we'll have not only people with low IQ skills checking people in, who, in a lot of places are "wannabe" police, have been picked on because of who knows what, that will be given FIREARMS (hopefully with a LOT of training, and psych exams first!). First time someone gets out of hand, instead of one looney firing off a weapon, we'll have lead flying all over the place. The TSA groping people is bad enough, but this just gives me one more reason not to fly.
back around 1990 there WAS a mass shooting in the food court of the mall across the street from my office (Perimeter Mall in suburban Atlanta). forget the exact casualty count but there were multiple victims, it was sad but people realized it was an unfortunate isolated incident/not the first wave of an invasion & life went back to normal pretty quickly. I'd bet you a fairly expensive dinner you could take a poll of patrons there now & less than 5% would even know this incident ever happened...
soooo... shooting happened, people grieved for a few days & nearly 1/4 century later few people even remember it (I probably wouldn't if I didn't work with people who were there) and there have been exactly ZERO recurrences despite the conspicuous absence of a bear patrol - go figure...
I whole heartedly condemn the shooter, both in principle as well as pragmatically b/c people are already seizing the opportunity to tar anyone w/legitimate criticisms of tsa w/same brush as the shooter ("you're just an anti-govt nut!!!"). I wouldn't have thought it possible but this incident is a significant setback for any hope of meaningful reform...
After hearing of the guy who was left alone because he wasn't working for the TSA, it seemed like this guy wasn't just out for a killing spree or some anti-government nut job, but had a very specific reason to hate the TSA.
I can't help but wonder if he was molested as a child and the TSA's enhanced screening procedures set him off. The TSA's official training materials specifically give tips on how to handle young children. It's interesting to contrast it with the training given to parents who participate in cub/boy scout events, so they know how to recognize inappropriate behavior and potential risks from pervs. Having done the scout training first and seen some of the TSA materials after, it really stands out as a how-to program for pedophiles.
Duh! The whole point of the TSA screeners is that they should face life-threatening danger. A bomb is life threatening and dangerous. A bomb that explodes is worse. If TSA screeners aren't going to be putting themselves in life-threatening situations they have no business being there at all. Come to think of it, just the last part.
problems, personal, social, and scientific.
Maybe reexamine the way mental illness is treated and use the money improve.
I agree, but this guy wasn't mentally ill - he just had enough and struck back the only way he knew how and that would accomplish something.
Let's face it, get mistreated by the TSA and you get some BS boilerplate response from the bureaucrats in DC. Complain to your Congressman and, if anything, the same old boilerplate response about "keeping everyone safe".
I'm sure we'll find out that there's a lot of other shit happening to this guy - maybe: job sent overseas, more work piled on with no help even though the company is making record profits, .... I don't know.
And when you see the fat cats and the assholes in DC (that was redundant) flying on their private jets or at the very least, coasting through TSA checkpoints and not having to deal with the BS that they enact, it gets tiring.
Complaints fall on deaf ears. Our leaders have no idea what the rest of us people are going through.
Was he right? Hell no! But the fact of the matter is that folks are getting real tired of the ineptitude of our leadership in DC and the abuse by our Government.
She is introducing legislation today to confer Law Enforcement Powers upon TSA agents, including the right to carry firearms in the course of duty.
Nancy Pelosi just loves more guns, provided they're in the hands of government agents and not citizens.
total elimination of the TSA
Marathon runs obviously need an armed guard every 10 yards along the course. We have proof that terrorists see marathon runs as a target!
You joke, but...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/02/us-usa-newyork-marathon-idUSBRE9A104A20131102
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sorry, further arming everything and making everything into a military state isn't the right approach. Despite more guards the TSA agent would have been shot anyway. This "solution" solves nothing (except give the illusion that they are some how safer).
Allegedly you also have amendments about search and seizure and free speech but those are championed by the EFF and ACLU hippies and don't count anymore.
I say - arm everyone. Every passenger can carry a weapon. Shut down the checkpoints. Anyone who comes through, just comes through. If EVERYONE has a weapon, then everyone is safe.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Gunman specifically targeted tsa not civilians.
Exactly - give anyone who wants to carry the right to carry. Oh - wait. That's already in the CONSTITUTION!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Pick up that can.
Now put it in the bin, no liquids on the plane!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's "We the government", right?
and there is a call for disarming the law abiding population
A TSA agent gets shot and the same people want them to be armed...
hypocrites
I lol'd.
It is sad actually that today we really do need to think about what we say online for actual fear of the government. I am a US citizen, but I do not live in the US. Because I do travel there often to visit family, friends and to take advantage of the 1/2 price shopping land, I do need to take care what I say in an open forum.
I have some friends who are very vocal about the course the US has taken. They are also living Americans living abroad. They are always singled out for "random" extra security. One has even has his laptop taken for several hours and missed his flight for it. The other has has gotten two audit letters from the IRS. Before you ask, no, they are not brown people. Just normal guys who speak out.
Am I a coward from not shouting at the top of my lungs. Yeah, probably. But on the other hand, do I want to put my family through an IRS audit and random ass searches? No, I don't.
Aren't TSA civilians?
Especially coming from the TSA (yeah, yeah, it's the Union, not the TSA...pfffft) who used to get the panties in a twist over fingernail clippers and still does over a tube of toothpaste.
The Feds should look at this incident as a warning strip on the road. When you stray from the straight and narrow, it makes a huge racket to wake you up. The excesses of the Federal government are increasing every day and are starting to push some of the less stable over the edge. How long until it's not just some crazy guy off his meds and a normal person with a legitimate grievance...like a loved one being denied care under Obamacare?
The question is, will the Feds listen to the warning strip?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This will only cause more needless deaths.
I don't even trust the TSA to scan for bombs properly, and now you want me to put GUNS in their hand?
This would make me feel incredibly unsafe, and I guarantee you it wouldn't be long before we hear of shootings started by these idiots.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Why the fuck is a government agency unionized in the first place?
For the same reasons that employees of any organization have ever unionized: for protection from their employers. Duh. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Yup, your gun will keep you safe from the guy next to you with a bomb...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why is the US getting closer and closer to the state of things showed in that awesome game?
Don't get me wrong, the TSA are constitution breaking assholes, that do a million times more harm than even the theoretical good they could do.
But, they are searching people for guns and other contraband. And when they find some, what are they supposed to do? Ask the criminal carrying a weapon to calmly surrender to the unarmed TSA agents (the most hated people in all of the USA), so that you can be detained without trial for the next twenty years and tortured for information?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The price of a good handgun lately? And ammunition costs! On a 30K salary? No way.
I know. How about we randomly arm people, so no one even knows who is armed. This could change everything! We could make it voluntary, so people who choose to carry arms could do it. I can't believe I thought of this! It's too bad our founding fathers didn't have this kind of foresight.
I always liked the Archie Bunker solution to the hijacking problem in the 70's.
Issue a gun to each passenger when they board.
I wonder why they dont use some sort of system that dispenses a knockout gas.
And we propose a policy to arm all passengers before they enter the airport. Thereby we can guarantee the safety of all passengers from outside harm.
.....get rid of TSA completely. Much cheaper than guarding them.
I'm not so sure.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Of course. Just make sure you shoot before he sets off that bomb. And make sure your fellow passengers don't shoot you thinking you're a terrorist as you just shot the other guy.
And in no-time we have a nice shoot-out. Just hope the cockpit has bulletproofing so the pilot can survive and at least put the aircraft back on the ground.
Damn those union workers for expecting to be protected after the government has put targets on their backs with insane security policies and then stuck them in a high-risk environment for all of $30k/year.
How much risk would you take every day for $30k/year before asking for an armed guard to be put at the door to your cubicle hive? Tell you what, we could find out. Let's put a bunch of customer service phone center workers in a very public place and have them do their jobs out in the open and see how long it takes before people start taking shots at them and then we can ask them how it feels and if they want to be protected.
Fucking unions. Next they're going want safety equipment before going into coal mines.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not in their minds.
One or one hundred or ten thousand dead isn't worth turning a country of over 300 million people into a police state. Oops, too late.
What the Rent-A-Pig union doesn't get is that someone willing to DIE to kill others won't be intimidated by armed guards. Intimidation works on a whole different class of people, those with something to lose. That's MOST folks, but nutters and terrs are quite free to ignore that dynamic so they do.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Well the odds of there being TWO bombs on the plane are astronomical, so I always bring a bomb on the plane with me.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
These TSA security theaters provide a natural choke-point for future attack vector. Once AQ attacked the mall in Kenya, it was pretty clear they'd been reading Tom Clancy novels (Rainbow Six novel Teeth of the Tiger I think includes islamic terrorists who enter the country alongside illegal immigrants from mexico and attack a number of malls). I cannot recall where I read this, but in some other novel, the terrorists recognized that bombing airplanes or hijacking commercial airliners is not necessary. You can pack a lot of explosives into a civil-aviation plane and fly it where ever you want (I think NCIS did this last week). And you can attack the bottleneck that forms at security checkpoints. No need to fight through security at the airport when you can roll a few hundred pounds of C4 into the middle of the crowd that forms at the airport check points, taking out passenger and the security equipment too. That'll ground all flights for awhile. And how do you defend that? With a security checkpoint before the security checkpoint?
Does this mean Obama will stop his anti-second amendment agenda now?
Stop spreading lies or being ignorant or both.
Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want.
He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrack trains.
He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.
He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines.
His justice department has never challenged any of the numerous state level laws that have increased gun rights (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, etc.) or any of the stand-your-ground laws.
He is one of the most pro-gun Presidents in recent times and yet right wing delusionals (and firearm business interests) still trot out he is trying to take away guns.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Most sane people do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting civilians in any venue neither.
YES!!! Lets arm the most ILLEGITIMATE Government agency EVER CREATED!
Fools...
which means more queues which means ....
It's TSA checkpoints all the way down.
Lambasted by rightwing radio, evening news and comedians. Just a matter of time before self-proclaimed vigilantes act.
An entire country locked in a mexican standoff, that sounds nice.
Or could this actually be a new type of standoff entirely? The American standoff?
So in order to get through security, you have to get through security's security?
There was never any doubt the gun nuts and anti-government types (= all of /.?) would be all over this one, but c'mon, at least use an analogy that fits. The TSA union wants armed guards to protect itself from nutsos with guns. Just like the TSA protects us from having to face people with weapons on planes. It is quite consistent.
IMO, they should use local police. No need to bloat the payroll ad nauseum.
^ what AC said... ^
So, the solution to this ongoing problem is to keep things as they are?
which is totally what she said
Didn't a McDonalds clerk get shot one time? They should be armed as well, oh and grocery store clerks and gas station attendants. (And Fred the guy two cubicles down and ... Oh hell just everyone.)
Most sane people do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting civilians in any venue neither.
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian machine gun (or other automatic firearm) since 1934.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The solution is surely for everyone to bring a bomb on board.
Misfit Oxbridge grads in black helicopters descending from GCHQ in 5...
Exactly. This just happened to be in an airport. It could have been a train station, a bus station, a mall, a football game, a public park, etc. Basically anywhere there's a large gathering of people. At some point, we just have to try to find ways to stop people from getting this messed up in the first place, instead of trying to stop them by having guards at the venue they choose to attack.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I say - arm everyone. Every passenger can carry a weapon. Shut down the checkpoints. Anyone who comes through, just comes through. If EVERYONE has a weapon, then everyone is safe.
Well that is the position on just about every other mode of transport.
What you mean only criminals commit crimes? Amazing insight that as soon as someone starts shooting your point is valid. It's as though only those people who are murderers go out and murder people. Amazing logic.
Aren't TSA civilians?
"Civilian" isn't well-defined in most modes of its usage; it's a context-dependent term. Are police civilians? To soldiers they are, but police and non-police civilians often use the term to distinguish non-police from police. Many members of many government agencies do the same thing, do distinguish between those who have government-granted authority from those who don't. For that matter, people in some non-governmental groups use the term to distinguish members of their group.
If you like, you can restrict the term to it's pure meaning of "not a soldier", but that just leaves a vacuum, a need for some term to fill its role in other contexts. Or you can just accept that it has different meanings in different contexts, and that it's nearly always quite clear what is meant.
Who would protect the TSA agents from the other TSA agents?
No, not at all. The solution is, to repeal every single damned gun law that has been written at each and every level of government for the past 75 years. The ONLY reasonable gun law, is the one that prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons. Explosives laws are pretty reasonable in comparison - most people don't need or want explosives, and the training to handle them responsibly isn't available in every town. But guns - just repeal all the stupid laws.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but more people die there every year than most of the rest of the country combined.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I know everyone loves to hate the TSA, but take a look at what Israel does. There are two reasons these kinds of events never happen in their airports:
1. Security lines are never long, by design, because a long line puts passengers at this kind of risk.
2. Passengers are checked by armed guards before even entering the airport. They rule out the possibility of car bombs and armed individuals before they even set foot inside.
are the answer to firearms. And then even more. Sure. What could possibly go wrong ?
*forehead slap*
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Bodyguards for cops, to protect them as they carry out their vital duties. And then those bodyguards can have bodyguards! The solution to America's employment problem is at hand! Unless Haliburton et. al. just ship in 3rd World mercenaries to do the guarding - that would be just like them.
At least as safe as all the security theater that the TSA puts on for us.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There is no significant risk of being shot as a TSA traffic screener. Once, ever, does not make a trend. Far more TSA traffic screeners have been killed by drunk drivers or shot at home than shot on the job. Why doesn't anybody care about them?
The only justification for armed guards are airport security checkpoints is to expand the power of the TSA and Homeland Security. Therefore, it will happen.
Often the union and its members are not in agreement. A good example is here (Ontario) the union funds all sorts of political events. I somehow don't think that the majority of its members approve of this spending. When the government tried to pass a transparency law into union spending, the unions freaked out even though its members frequently approve such a law.
What you mean only criminals commit crimes? Amazing insight that as soon as someone starts shooting your point is valid.
I said "lawfully-owned"... someone's decision to start shooting doesn't change the legal ownership status of the firearm.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Chicago has no borders.
Right after we have an armed guard at the door of all of our public schools.
That's the ticket!
further more....
Arm the good citizens. The citizens can protect the TSA and the pilots.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Perhaps we can call the new unit the Praetorian Guard.
What could possibly go wrong?
They'll be handy when pay disputes arise.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped? Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just do away with the TSA and screening lines, and just put the armed guards on all the planes?
Then we should have bomb permits!
That'll stop their misuse.
No more TSA at all.
That's right, we're looking at you, government.
Eat a dick.
Sounds like we need to unionize - maybe we can get protection from their employers also...
Because you don't sell more guns as quickly if the president is seen as letting you keep buying them. It's all a marketing gimmick by the gun industry. "Obammy's gonna take yur guns! Buy more now!!" And they line up. They say the same thing any time a Democrat is elected.
Are you against free enterprise with your truthful statements? What are you, some sort of commie pinko?!
Absolutely - next thing you know those armed guard will need another different group of armed guard to protect them, probably with automatic rifles!
Give me a specific piece of anti-second-amendment (or even anti-gun) legislation that Obama has either proposed or actually signed into law.
I'll wait.
The U.S. already has mandatory mental health checkups. They are called "elections". The results are increasingly appalling, but apart from occasional organized killing sprees abroad, the majority stays interned in the U.S. voluntarily.
They listen at GCHQ - the black helicopters will come from RHQ Credenhill with you vanishing to Colchester.
^^^ Shill alert. How about those "secret executive orders" after Sandy Hook?
You honestly think nobody is going to remember?
Also, your use of talking-point keywords gives you away: "right-wing delusionals"
The TSA does not protect anything but their own jobs.
An entire country locked in a mexican standoff, that sounds nice.
Or could this actually be a new type of standoff entirely? The American standoff?
You guys did it at worldwide scale back then. Remember the cold war?
Yes indeed.. prescreened in some sense.. you get to go through a shorter line and not take off shoes, belt, etc. or remove the laptop from the back. Kind of like going back to the 80s.
However, as more people participate in this program, the lines are getting longer. It used to be that there would be nobody in the Pre-Chek line and I'd breeze through (sneering at the proles who aren't *special* like I am; you might imagine me also using the Lexus Lane on the freeway, as my driver blew past the commoners in the other lanes). Last time I went through the line at LAX, there were almost as many people in the Pre-Chek line as the non Pre-Chek, *unspecial people* line. Our line did go faster; and there's no mm-radar; but these days, the line speed is determined more by the 10 seconds to run your stuff through the X-ray machine, more than the walk through and disrobing/rerobing. Yes, if you wind up in the line behind the bozo who hasn't ever been to an airport in their life, it's slower.. but they'll wind up in the Pre-Chek line too. (What do you mean I can't carry on my Katana? And I have to check my Glock?)
Employees are responsible for what their union does. I will take back that statement for any set of employees that sack the entire union leadership when they do something bad. But they do not. I am sorry a guy died. I feel really bad for the family. But ....
Fuck the TSA.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Give up?
They have never stopped anything. Everything gets by them and has been stopped on the plane or failed on the plane. They only exist to get you used to "showing your papers" and getting searched.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Do you realise that every year many more people die from gun violence in the US than in almost completely unarmed Europe? This while the population of Europe is nearly twice that of the US?
And by the way, are you talking about this no-guns-allowed NRA conference where everyone went home safely, or this bring-all-your-guns NRA conference where one got off by accident, and as a result everybody started to randomly spew around bullets, and 20 visitors didn't make it home?
Please define "normal cops". I mean, I knew of some when I was a kid. I can probably still find some today. But, I have no idea what you mean by "normal".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This is not the TSA. This is a /. forum.
Some TSA Agents might be jerks, but by far not all of them. At the end of the day they are ordinary people just doing their jobs trying to protect people.
It's so trendy to make fun of Tea Bag activists. But we're all about scaling back an ever growing and more ominous government, which also includes dismantling the obsolete, yet all powerful Homeland Security. Maybe they deserve a little more credit than the moronic mass media and parroting nonsensical trolls give them. We've already addressed our disdain with the TSA, though through lawful methods.
OK, done ranting. Guess it's just a rambling "I told you so..."
you think about it. the TSA's union is comprised of TSA employees.
they are not adding any actual security and then they will all be perfectly safe
"... Blackwater? They seemed pretty good at shooting civilians."
Obama is good at hitting civilians]
Obama jokes about it: "I‘m Really Good At Killing People"
No, fucktard, that's "WE THE PEOPLE", as in every american citizen. Use it or lose it, sweetheart.
Dumbass--THINK about what you just wrote, AC. We don't live in a monarchy, we live in a democratic republic, where blocs of citizens elect representatives who mirror and/or promote their bloc's particular values against those of rival blocs. By saying "Government is the Enemy", you're saying WE are the enemy. What do you want, another civil war? Citizens killing off politicians, and then turning on the other citizens who elected those politicians? Anarchy for all? Here's a clue for you, MORON: Most people don't want to live in anarchy. They want to live in a society whose cultural values match their own. Gawddamn extreme anarchists--you're just as bad as those you call your enemy, and you are a discredit to sensible anarchists.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
This is entirely unnecessary. At every airport that I have traveled though there are armed security. They are the local sheriff and city police. They all have guns and can cross the checkpoints with them. This eliminates the need to arm the stazi that requires us to show our papers. I call Godwin's law on myself, because it is all too true. Maybe the police are at the airport only to stop the TSA from stealing personal belonging.
If you look at your statistics you will find that if you want to stop gun violence you do the same steps to handle the majority of crime in the US. Handle the poverty problem. A look at your gun homicide rate will match up to your regular homicide rate as well as your locations of poverty and jobless in the US. It does not correlate to gun ownership density. or even gun laws. It only matches up to poverty rates.
Maybe you missed the efforts to rein in 'large' magazines after Sandy Hook? He wanted tighter restrictions, but the backlash was sufficient to force him to back down. He hasn't MANAGED to push gun control through, that doesn't mean that he wouldn't like to. His positions as state senator and senator make his stance on the issue pretty clear, although I'll be fair and admit that it is nowhere near the top of his priorities - he is weakly pro-extreme gun control.
Does this mean Obama will stop his anti-second amendment agenda now?
Stop spreading lies or being ignorant or both.
1) Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want.
2) He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrack trains.
3)He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.
4) He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines.
5) His justice department has never challenged any of the numerous state level laws that have increased gun rights (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, etc.) or any of the stand-your-ground laws.
6) He is one of the most pro-gun Presidents in recent times and yet right wing delusionals (and firearm business interests) still trot out he is trying to take away guns.
You stop spreading lies.
Unlike you, I'll actually cite my facts
1) Whatever type of firearm they want? Not likely: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/obama-issues-new-executive-orders-against-guns/
2) This is technically true, but you are leaving out a key part: The law allows firearm owners to *check* their guns in luggage on Amtrak, not carry. Just as on a flight: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-laws-obama-has-signed-2012-12
3) I have found no news or information confirming this. Here's North Dakota's website on reciprocity: http://www.ag.nd.gov/BCI/CW/reciprocity.htm Doesn't look nation wide to me.
4) Another lie. Obama has publicly stated his opposition to high capacity mags: http://www.policymic.com/articles/23489/obama-gun-control-plan-high-capacity-magazine-is-public-enemy-number-one
5) His justice department has challenged Florida's stand-your-ground laws after the Trayvon Martin shooting. You can google the sources yourself... they're countless.
So you stop spreading your lies.
All a staged event for a push to get armed thugs in the airports. Right now a large number of people know that the TSA is a joke and that they like to infringe on people's rights. They are the ones that make comments to TSA agents and point out how stupid their whole sham is. Can have that! With a gun they will stop about 3/4 of that and the others they can "detain" at the end of a guns.
Clearly what's needed here is a security system that prevents passengers from approaching the TSA security lines with anything harmful in their possession.
I suggest the creation of a Transportation Security Agency Security Agency (TSASA), which can run baggage and personal possessions through x-ray machines and make people walk through metal detectors prior to screening by the TSA.
Just hope the cockpit has bulletproofing so the pilot can survive and at least put the aircraft back on the ground.
No, no, you misunderstand: Don't even take off. The pilot doesn't even need to be in the cockpit when the "plane" (read: tube-shaped immersive theater) "takes off" (read: starts the show). That way, we get to wipe out a bunch of gun nuts, keep the pilot safe by being way the hell away from the fracas, save money on fuel and such, AND there's no risk of a plane crashing down on innocent people! It's a perfect winning recipe!
In Germany in the midst of real constant terrorism in the 70s and 80s by the RAF, many Polizei would be roaming around the airports with submachine guns obviously displayed.
No TSA, no taking off shoes, not liquid limits, no confiscating knitting needles, just a clear message that if you try something you will be hosed down by 9mm. They never attacked a German airport. But they did attack the US air base at Ramstein.
Just declare airports to be gun-free zones cause it works everywhere else it is tried
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I can easily see pushing back the borders of the "secure" area. My girlfriend suggested making it the entire airport building complex, not just the terminals. Guards at every outside door, and security searches. Then again, people congregate at the shuttle bus stations in the parking lot... and there are a lot of people on the highways, a bomb or a shooter would be bad there, too. People often live in apartments, they have lots of residents, tightly packed. Probably best to have an armed guard search you as you get out of bed, thern drive you to the airport. Can't get any safer than that!
If there is such a link, a country like China (much poorer than the US) should have a much higher gun death ratio. It's not what that country is known for. Within Europe, the poorer eastern parts (far lower incomes than the US on average) also don't have serious gun issues.
Poverty may or may not have to do with it - it's obviously not the only thing. Homicide rates (and other gun related deaths even more so) in the US are well above those of other developed countries that are currently not experiencing a war.
The TSA has armed guards. They just aren't the TSA, which is NOT a police agency, and why they are not armed. We have Airport Police for exactly this reason. And they did their job. You cannot stop a nut with a gun, and it is a rare event. The solution is not to take away guns (Airports are gun free zones, aren't they?) but rather to understand that you cannot prevent bad things from happening, without living in a tyranny state.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
to protect the people from the TSA
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
A well armed society is a polite society.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
IMO, they should use local police. No need to bloat the payroll ad nauseum.
Unless there are plenty of officers sitting around doing nothing while on the clock, wouldn't using local police just shift the cost of all those additional positions to the local government? Why would you want to hide the costs of the TSA?
The shooting at the NRA convention was an April Fools joke. I know you hoped it was true, but that kind of thing doesn't actually happen.
There was a shooting at a gun show a while back, some idiot brought in a loaded shotgun to sell it, and it went off when he set it on a table. In the middle of a hall with many armed people, that was the only shot fired.
Why don't we just give the lunatic an armed guard?
The missing link your looking for is human density. poverty and human density result in increased homicide. Not just gun death but death over all. Gun deaths are just a symptom of the overall issue.
Shoot everybody. Let God sort it out.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
By the way your link to the " bring-all-your-guns NRA conference [mnprogressiveproject.com] " is an april fools satire. Look at the date and the tags at the bottom of the page.
They'll be getting lovely new uniforms though! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Die_Uniformen_der_Allgemeinen_SS_32-45.jpg
Doesn't the Washington Naval Yard have armed security guards?
"Police said the two Browns and Randolph led a group of robbers into Northeast Gun Shop in the 4900 block of Belair Road. The owner, Charles E. "Eddie" Scheuerman, 53, died of a gunshot wound to the chest and another man, Michael Berman, 42, was shot in the upper back. Mr. Berman survived."
Not a mass killing, but if the shop had been busy...
No, but I've read of people being murdered at shooting ranges - case of two guys murdered in Hungary for instance. I believe quite a few people are armed there.
There was a case in Poland - hijacked by it's own military.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. The alternative is that you're an idiot.
Tell that to the two guys in Detroit who died last month when a minor incident of road rage between two licensed gun carrying drivers (with families in the cars) escalated into a gun battle where they killed each other.
I assume that since they each had a gun that they each felt they could enforce their opinion over the other. When it turned out that they both had a gun, it escalated beyond standoff to death... not too polite.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Chicago has no borders.
Apparently, the entire country no longer has borders. We can't stop millions of illegal, er.... undocumented, immigrants from crossing the nation's borders each year, so what makes you think that we can stop weapons from crossing the border?
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
No way! One guard was killed at the airport attack. With hundreds frightened morons whipping out their guns LAX would have turned into the OK Corral. Just getting the normal cops to not shoot too many innocent bystanders is hard enough.
http://bash.org/?4753
"Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want."
Negative. At least one executive order were issued by his administration restricting guns:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps
"He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states."
There is no such Federal law making CCWs valid in one state valid in all. It is up to each law as to if they will honor another state's CCW. If there was such a law that you speak of, then we wouldn't need CCW Reciprocity Maps like this one:
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
"He has signed legislation allowing guns ... on Amtrack trains."
Kind of. Amtrak does not allow you to carry, only check firearms in your checked luggage. In fact, you have to get a reservation 24 hours in advance just to check your bag with your firearm and/or ammo (unlike flying, where it's just a normal option when checking luggage):
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1248542758975
"He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks ..."
Kind of. It's still up to the Superintendent of each NP as to allow you to carry. Yosemite allows no weapons whatsoever without a permit, and they won't issue permits. That means OC/pepperspray, knives, and clearly no firearms.
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/compendium.pdf
Please provide your sources to everything you've said. All my research and evidence was done with 15 minutes of Googling.
Such a limited reaction doesn't bode well for when someone decides to empty their machine gun there. Which, according to pro-gun activists, should not be able to result in many deaths with so many guns around.
Exactly - give anyone who wants to carry the right to carry. Oh - wait. That's already in the CONSTITUTION!!
I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" *, but I'm convinced by this point that generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials have most likely rendered the standard gun nut's brain literally incapable of processing the meaning of the phrase, if the political indoctrination involved hasn't simply brainwashed them into believing that said phrase simply does not exist, rendering it invisible to their eyes.
*: Okay, fine, two words if the hyphen connects them.
Again China with its mega-cities (it has many cities with >10 mln people - how many of those are there in the US?) has more people live really close together. It also has lots of very empty countryside.
This is a great idea. It clearly tells the public that the shooting at LAX was not the work of a crazy extremist but rather reflects the growing attitude of many Americans. And that they expect it to continue. It will help reinforce the "Them vs. Us" image that TSA has worked so hard to build in the last decade. How could you not want some lower IQ TSA type nervously standing around with a gun, looking for someone to shoot if they dare complain about pat downs that rise to the level of sexual molestation or show unhappiness when the TSA decides to throw away their expensive spare laptop battery?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
No, marathon runners should all be mandated to carry an M16 while running. That should fix the problem.
I was taking a flight in 2008. I was in one of those long and winding lines waiting to go through security.
Someone in the middle of the line answers their cell phone.
A security guard from across the room points at him and shouts "NO CELL PHONES". Dude doesn't even realize he's being yelled at, so the guard INSTANTLY rips the cordon off, still pointing at the cell phone holder. Is marching towards him, pushing through the crowd, hand on (thankfully holstered and bolted) gun, shouting "NO CELL PHONES PUT IT AWAY!"
That's who they want to hire-- except they want to give them automatic assault weapons and no oversight
I haven't flown since 2008, swore off doing so once the rapey scanners came in. Most assuredly will NOT even reconsider with this policy in place.
Because after all, armed guards in charge of protecting "national security" at any cost will never overreact, make someone like, say, a mother with her child believe she's doing something wrong, make her nervous, then chase her down the streets of Washington and execute her in front of her baby.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Name one thing the TSA has stopped. One.
Well... They almost stopped me from traveling once because I asked a question about something. The guy then said, "do you want to travel today?" I said, "yes." He said, "then be quiet." If I had been single and not traveling with others, I might have protested, but instead I played "good sheep."
So, they're good at intimidating innocent people.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No FUCK YOU. We have a second amendment right to be fully armed at all times.
Funny, that one seems to be the only constitutional right still being enforced in your country, these days.
Could this whole incident have just been a pretense to arm the TSA, a crucial move towards making them the "secret police" of the U.S.? Everyone else remember the news stories of how roaming teams of TSA agents were inhabiting bus stations and other non-airports? Yeah yeah yeah I know, "get a tinfoil hat" -- or could I be right? Power always seeks more power, and corruption is directly proportional to the percentage of power attained. Given their track record, does anyone doubt for a moment that the TSA would like to be the Secret Police?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
then it moved to the malls and the shops, your local street corner
soon little armed guards will be popping up everywhere....reminding us of just how fucked we are
Actually, they stopped me from getting on the plane with an 8 oz tube of toothpaste once.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
One shot, everybody looks, sees some guy looking scared and stupid, a couple hurt, no further shots fired, go about your business or render aid. It is quite a different scenario from some guy coming in blazing.
BTW, since 1934, there have been two murders committed in the US with one of the hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns. One of them was a corrupt cop killing a drug informant. In both cases, it was a single murder that could have been committed with any weapon.
Please come back to us when you understand the difference between a dependent and an independent clause.
when i went to a certain airport in USA a few weeks ago the only armed person that i saw was a police officer and a police dog in the check-in terminal. no armed guards at security checkpoint. i didn't see any other guards on patrol, not even near the gates or the food court. come to think of it, i didn't see any near the baggage claim area either. just making observation.
Do TSA wear vests? I mean if you are really worried about bullets flying around....
...scuba divers...
Yeah, I read the article; they are inspecting the piers beneath the bridges. However in my mind I picture guys standing near the finish line in full scuba gear.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Um.. All unions are composed of mafia employees..
And by the time you live in a tyranny or police state, something bad has happened.
Cant we just have the TSA pistol whip every passenger? That way we can be sure it's safe?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA"
Hmm, okay, let's see... I keep my guns in good working order, know how to use them, and do not count as regular military.
Check, well-regulated militia. Anything else you'd like to discuss?
Everybody rides nekkid
would have turned into the OK Corral
Prove that. Seriously....that is how it plays out in Hollywood, and in your imagination, not in the real world.
In the real word, the presence of guns prevents the incident from happening in the first place. The most effective deterrent to actual violence is a credible threat of retaliatory violence. That is how humans actually work in the real world. Widespread gun ownership reduces violence.
Name one thing the TSA has stopped. One.
Give up?
They have never stopped anything. Everything gets by them and has been stopped on the plane or failed on the plane. They only exist to get you used to "showing your papers" and getting searched.
They stop people from making their flights on time...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Yup, your gun will keep you safe from the guy next to you with a bomb...
Only a good guy with a bomb can stop a bad guy with a bomb.
Give me a break. If the job's too risky quit.
And stop stealing out of peoples' luggage!!
It's not the TSA, it's the union representing the TSA screeners.
Who do you think make up the union if not the TSA screeners? I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc. I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue.
I live in Europe where it's perfectly normal to see a few soldiers with automatic weapons roaming around airports and large train stations.
And frankly, when I compare the inconvenience of having six or twelve soldiers wandering around (none) to the arrogant attitude, invasive groping or scanning and general annoyance level of the TSA punks...I'll take the soldiers any day.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?
Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?
You are joking right? You're not just being ignorant or stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21119400-two-wounded-in-shooting-at-tennessee-armory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I think the local police are there anyway, maybe they can have a TSA detail, and compensated by the TSA. Bring some fresh eyes into the table.
I think the point is that when someone complains about "the TSA", their complaints are usually, though not always, about the policy decisions made by high-level officials in the Department of Homeland Security. The TSA employees that are working at the airports don't make policy decisions, and neither does the union representing them.
Does this mean Obama will stop his anti-second amendment agenda now?
He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-plan-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks/1837793/
Bullshit.
What's your point? That I should give a shit about what the liberal left thinks? Not gonna happen.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/16/obama-gun-violence-plan-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks/1837793/
Concerned Citizens Everywhere call for TSA to be dissolved as worthless, weak and an outright slap in the face to every freedom loving person everywhere.
TSA = Thanks for Saving America. From toothpaste.
--- He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.
This is not true. Having a carry permit in one state does not mean you can carry in the other 49. Many states have reciprocity agreements but that is determined at the individual state level.
Here's my solution to the problem: Remove the TSA agents.
It was directly their presence that got an unarmed passenger shot. For the public safety, they should removed and corralled into a single location in the country, so that should another disgruntled, armed man want to shoot them, they will be isolated from the general public.
Problem solved.
I say - arm everyone.
Yes, because everyone spends a few hours a week, every week, at the range keeping their skills up, properly maintains and cleans their weapons regularly and has been through training to ensure they stay calm and focused during a "situation."
Oh wait, this is 'Murica. Expect most rounds to hit something OTHER than the intended target, resulting in explosive decompression. Aloha 243, anyone?
After putting up with profiling, perhaps it's high time to:
1. Pass a federal "shall-issue" mandate on the states, like the drinking age of 21 and the .08% BAC. States failing to pass shall-issue gun legislation face loss of their highway funding.
2. Put Sikhs in charge of air security. Let them exercise their noble tradition in service and dignity as they do in the rest of the world. Such visibility will serve well to do away with the stereotypes.
This will never happen because governments will never pass laws expanding liberty. Such would be contrary to the nature of government.
I guess the screeners have relatives in search of a job. So instead of: "give us a gun!" it is "give us a guard!".
It IS how it turns out in Gangland America, for example Chicago, as was observed by the person I was disagreeing with. They are trapped in a cycle of never-ending retaliatory shootings. Law enforcement is considered irrelevant and self defense means being armed. The result is carnage.
As for the TSA shooting, the guy was carrying a suicide note.
... you cannot prevent bad things from happening, without living in a tyranny state.
You can't stop bad things from happening in a tyranny state either.
Perhaps in part because government restrictions on ownership --- licenses, taxes, etc. --- make said devices significantly more difficult to procure than cheap, mass-market pistols. If, on the other hand, such devices were as cheap and easy to acquire as semi-automatic firearms, I suspect one would see wider use for nefarious purposes.
People would not be arming themselves and going apeshit if they were looking forward to a great life. And I think the whole pro-militarism thing is to blame as well. When I grew up, the bad guys carried guns and shot people in the back. Now we have sniper competitions on the education networks. Its sick.
The TSA as an organization is as useless to the American people as the TSA workers are useless to private employers.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Are they really suggesting that giving agents the ability to fire weapons into or near crowds of hundreds of people is going to make things safer?
I heard of an accidental shooting at a gun show. Happened about a year ago.
Union Pros: Long term training, retention of skill, knowledge, and quality. Union Cons: Mandating inefficiencies, protecting bad workers. This most definitely seems a case showing the negative side of unions. They are mandating more expense, more employees, higher paid employees, all for next to zero gain. Actually, negative gain because armed guards will add to the intimidation they already enjoy. This is why so many people have an extremely negative view of unions. They are shooting themselves in the foot for the long term when they make emotional (irrational) demands like this.
here
You lie just as badly as Obama does. Easy to prove you are a liar.
Bonus:
Executive Orders
I can teach you to use Google if you really are too stupid to do it yourself.
High-powered anti-cavity toothpaste.
The solution to prevent future events like this is for the TSA agents to cool their arrogant attitudes, and stop acting like Nazi stormtroopers. I remind everybody that before 9/11 there were no TSA and no events similar to this one.
Get rid of the TSA.
So the union dues can go right back into the coffers of the DNC. Duh!
They need queues with bullet resistant glass leading to metal detectors.
Having a gun doesn't stop someone from pulling out a gun and shooting you.
Having a gun doesn't help when the shooter is in a mass of bystanders waiting in line.
If you split off the people who fail a preliminary metal detector test THEN that area could have someone with a gun.
But even there an bullet resistant airlock system would be better.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You need wait no longer, sir.
http://www.newsmax.com/headline/obama-guns-executive-orders/2013/01/16/id/471689
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/obama-issues-new-executive-orders-against-guns/
You lie as much as Obama--which if you're confused, would be a lot.
Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his years in office except make it easier for people to own whatever type of firearm they want.
Though executive order, the ATF was issuing new rules concerning the re-importation of U.S. military surplus weapons. Where such importation was previously allowed only with government approval, now all requests for such importation will be denied altogether.
Through executive order, he eliminated registration of firearms to trusts or to corporations unless an individual associated with those entities undergoes a background check, So I cannot keep my weapons in a trust naming my children as recipients until they are 18. They are currently four years old. It is legal for me to buy and own weapons.
He has never pushed an "assault" weapons ban or even restrictions on large capacity magazines
Obama stated March 28, 2013 that there should be a "ban on weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines."
His justice department has never challenged any of the numerous state level laws that have increased gun rights (Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, etc.) or any of the stand-your-ground laws.
Obama states in regard to the Martin/Zimmerman case: "I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than defuse potential altercations"
Watch out, it's got fluoride!
More Twoson than Cupertino
The navy yard shooting isn't really a good example because the vast majority of people in the navy yard are not allowed to carry guns and those that do are open carry types like base police.
Having a gun won't prevent the first few casualties. It might stop a shooting incident from escalating to more dying.
Even licensed carriers are humans and may be enraged and lose control. I don't own a gun because based on my life experience it would only raise the risk in my family (grandkids might get it, I might have a misfire, I might be enraged and stupid sometime).
For some others, owning a gun makes sense.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
No, airports are not gun free zones universally; that depends on the state. I have open carried at SeaTac (Seattle-Tacoma) when picking someone up; I never went into the secure area, and was legal to carry up until that point. In some states, it is not. In my case, I was questioned, but not harassed. I have heard of people being harassed more, and don't know that I would try it again, or might prefer to carry concealed (although I think the reason I didn't then was that open was legal and concealed was not).
I'm among those that have long pointed out that the security checkpoint is a target-rich environment (even in states where guns are illegal in airports, unless they're just going to set up a checkpoint at the airport entrance, and all that does is move back the target-rich area to the doors and let a crazy guy shoot it up from the comfort of his car as he drives by, at least the way most airports are laid out).
Distributed is better than centralized. Letting people carry, even with a permitting process, is going to be more of a deterrent and have a chance of stopping attacks sooner than having a massive checkpoint and shifting it further toward a traveler's house each time someone realizes what a target it is.
But there's plenty of blame to go around, lots of interest in the TSA type setup.
I mean, we could likely solve the problems here for MUCH less cost by following the KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid). Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously, but really, this kind of thing seems to work for Israel, who would likely be bombed into terrorist kingdom come if they didn't put in measure like this that seem to actually work without pissing everyone off.
But, I guess that makes too much sense, and doesn't require a huge, bloated, over-budgeted and intrusive federal program to miss-manage and run it now, would it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Isn't this just like everyone in the US is responsible for what (pick your poison...NSA, TSA, Geo. Bush, Congress, Barak Obama) did? Same reasoning, no?
Just another day in Paradise
So, what legislation is that?
I wasn't aware that calling on Congress to do something counted as legislation.
Also, you forgot to log in.
How many planes fly every day? How many flights, on average, between plane hijackings?
Also, do you think the police would keep you safe from a man walking down the street with a bomb? But then, you dont generally worry about THAT, do you?
PS: The answers are ~90,000 domestic flights, and ~1400 days between hijacking attempts on US flights.
6 successful and unsuccessful plane hijackings in the last 23 years for the US = Once every 1400 days = Once every 125 million flights.
Is this really something that concerns you?
or a nice, clean remington 760
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
They caught the guy, so why are they going to bother increasing local law enforcement presence? It's pointless. That's like calling the firedepartment to extinguish a fire that has been extinguished for days.
oh no, much worse. evil is not merely the absence of good.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Even I am responsible for this crap. I have not revolted. Yet.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
How are any of those things anti-gun or anti-second amendment?
All of the proposed things are about gun safety, not about taking guns away from people. The second amendment is safe, kids.
Chicken little, the sky is not falling. You don';t have to snuggle with your shotgun in bed in fear of Obama "taking" it from you - well, unless you fail the background check (but then what were you doing with it in the first place).
Also, you forgot to log in.
People will do bad things. Responses to this tend to fall on a spectrum between "accept that a free society has bad actors" and "Set up a police state, and know what everyone is doing at all times".
The thing is, the police can be bad actors too. At least arming individuals makes the "bad actor" have to consider whether his actions could endanger his own safety.
The US has borders... but they're already pretty porous, given the amount of drugs that are imported each year. Even if we achieved the complete fantasy-land of total civilian disarmament, it wouldn't last ten seconds before criminals started getting imported guns (and, to make things even more fun, a much higher percentage of those guns would be fully-automatic sub-machineguns and the ubiquitous AK and knockoffs...)
I support repealing all gun laws. The consequences of repealing all gun laws will create the possibility of repealing the 2nd amendment, which is where the real problem is.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
example prove existence. they do not prove wisdom or moral imperative.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
Better yet, get rid of the TSA completely and forget the dogs. Terrorists are almost nonexistent to begin with.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously
No. Harassing people selectively is not okay with me, and I believe Israel is wrong in doing so.
Ignorance is a choice
Most sane people do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting civilians in any venue neither.
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian machine gun (or other automatic firearm) since 1934.
There has not been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian nuclear device either.
The ONLY reasonable gun law, is the one that prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons.
If you're going to say that fully automatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment, why should any other modern gun be protected?
I'm in favor of all guns and arms being protected by it until we actually amend the constitution. You don't just say that certain violations are "reasonable"; it's not reasonable for the government to violate the highest law of the land, or at least not in my eyes.
Ignorance is a choice
to defend themselves against democracy
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
> I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks
> that were acting suspiciously, but really, this kind of thing seems to work for Israel, who would likely
> be bombed into terrorist kingdom come if they didn't put in measure like this that seem to actually
> work without pissing everyone off.
Isreal yes, you mean, the country whose entire population is around 1 million less people than New York City; who gets subsidized with Billions of dollars (yes that means, thousands PER PERSON) by the US alone for their military and security needs.
Surely anything THEY feel is cost effective must be cost effective to scale up to a country with 150 or so times as many people, while paying the full cost. Sounds totally legit.
Never mind that we are not bordering peoples that we have had recent wars with, whose land we have stolen and continue make illegal settlements on.
We are just backing the people who do do that. If anything, fine.... revamp the TSA to work like Isreal....and Isreal can pay for it, since they are one of the main attractants of animosity towards the US.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
tsa doesn't need guns ,hell most cant even speak English second most aren't from this country ,three most of them aren't smart enough to have a gun.sorry the one got killed .but you people are nothing more than a rent a cop .police need guns you idiots don't not police.and if you people acted better people wouldn't hate you .
no, there aren't any. none.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I first traveled through Frankfurt airport back in '79, where the Polizi sported them. It was disconcerting at first, but you certainly do get used to it.
Just another day in Paradise
The maximum size is 100 ml, which coincidentally is the european standard toothpaste tube volume. So really in this respect the TSA is being un-American by not using fluid ounces.
ROFL!!
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian cruise missiles since 1860.
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian aircraft carrier since 2000BC.
I wish I could say the same about tanks though, but unlike the above mentioned items, tanks are actually something civilians can lawfully own, and therefore something that has been involved in crimes (usually getting stolen for a joyride of havock).
Sounds like the problem solved itself.
Well, then, go over to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country. If you're Kafir, they'll do that very thing and you'll either be very dead or nearly so.
Knock yourself out. Tell them that they're wrong in doing it all. See just how long you last.
What you FEEL to be wrong doesn't map to the cold harsh truth of how the world is and wishing it not so won't EVER change it.
Not sure I get where you're coming from. Sounds like you have more of a bone to pick with Israel than you do with my suggestion which only cherry picks a few methods they use at airports to keep them safe...
I'm not any huge fan of the Israelis, I mean I don't have anything against them, but I'm not a fan of supporting them either.
But I'd think my suggestion of doing away with the complex TSA apparatus, and getting rid of all the $$ expensive backscatter machines they have currently, and just having simple metal detectors, and bomb sniffing dogs would take the place of all the crap we have, pay for and endure currently with the TSA as it stands.
I'd think my suggestion would be cheaper, as effective if not more so...and you'd not have to even take your shoes off when going to catch a plane.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'd mention the three magic words that everyone seems to forget, "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" , but I'm convinced by this point that generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials have most likely rendered the standard gun nut's brain literally incapable of processing the meaning of the phrase, if the political indoctrination involved hasn't simply brainwashed them into believing that said phrase simply does not exist, rendering it invisible to their eyes.
It's an archaic usage, but by your apparently positioning yourself as a member of the group not affected by "generations of inbreeding, lead poisoning, and the buildup of heretofore-unknown trace toxins present in explosive materials", you are aware, aren't you that the process of 'regulating' a firearm involves adjusting it so that the sights are accurate -- that the bullet will land where the sights are pointing? And that 'well-regulated' was a term in use in the period applied to troops meaning 'properly disciplined' (check the OED)? In the London Gazette, No. 2568/3, 1690: "We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side."
A clearer interpretation of the usage comes from Alexander Hamilton's words in The Federalist papers No. 29: "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis mine)
The Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, specifically from Saturday, Dec. 13, 1777 also conveys this meaning of 'well regulated': "Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army." (emphasis mine) Later in that same day's record: "That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions." (emphasis mine)
These and other examples from the period make clear that a "well-regulated militia", as the term was used, was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning -- not one bound up by the strictures of laws restricting the arms that the government deems fit for them to possess.
I hate the TSA almost as much as I hate customs agents who get their jollies from being subhuman assholes.
TSA groupings, ominous security announcement loops, harassment (swabbing drinks within Airport restaurants) and backscatter x-rays are the top reasons I avoid flying. No place does "police state" and fear induced freakout / overreaction ring more true than at the airport.
Having said this I was always puzzled by the whole screening situation... Your looking for outliers.. a low probability event..yet what is the TSA to do if one is discovered? What do you expect to go down if there is not a credible state dispenser of violence on hand to "regulate"?
For example bad guy tries to smuggle bad thing thru security. Bad guy gets caught. Bad guy has no problem using force. If there is no security nearby.. as much as I hate the TSA as an organization... individual GED earning goons deserve better outcomes assuming there is statistically relevant need to defend against this situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was none while TSA display cases and blogs are filled with weapons of all kinds virtually all of them were innocent mistakes people forgetting to take that shit out of their bags rather than any intent to cause harm. Being a cab driver or pizza delivery "agent" is still infinitely more dangerous than being a TSA agent.
I think TSAs own admission nobody is attacking airports speaks for itself. Changing policy in response to specific incidents rather than objective determinations on how to best utilize and allocate limited resources in the long run causes more problems than it solves.
I don't think it was ever the government's policy that the people and the government should have equal amounts of guns, so I don't see where the hypocrisy is.
Otherwise you could say, the US government gets to have nuclear weapons, but they don't let the people have nuclear weapons, therefore they are hypocrites.
Give me a specific piece of anti-second-amendment (or even anti-gun) legislation that Obama has either proposed or actually signed into law.
I'll wait.
Obama's executive order banning the import of US surplus firearms by the CMP. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/obamas-new-executive-order-will-kill-the-110-year-old-civilian-marksmanship-program/
Universal background checks, magazine limits, "Assault Rifle" ban: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
You must extremely unprincipled and naive to want to sacrifice your freedoms to the government for safety. No government in history hasn't abused its powers in horrible, disgusting ways, and yet you want the government to be able to violate the constitution as it pleases? You disgust me, bootlicker.
Well, then, go over to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country. If you're Kafir, they'll do that very thing and you'll either be very dead or nearly so.
Telling me to go visit other countries with awful governments changes nothing; terrorists are almost nonexistent, and that is a fact.
What you FEEL to be wrong doesn't map to the cold harsh truth of how the world is and wishing it not so won't EVER change it.
Yeah, so just let the government violate the constitution; just accept it.
Ignorance is a choice
"as effective"? Considering how effective the TSA is, that's not saying... anything at all.
Ignorance is a choice
I tired talking to a few TSA goons the last time I was in the US. None would engage me in chit-chat.
Contrast that with the customs guy I chatted with in Melbourne this year, who when asked if he was always this busy, rolled his eyes and sarcastically said "Yep, just another day of living the dream". We both laughed and our day was a little better.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Yes, and that's tragic. However, it was more likely just one guy that caused it to go out of control. Also, the violence policy center and several other institutions have performed studies in various states (florida and texas were the most recent I believe) where it was shown that police officers are twice to three times as likely to commit homicide or firearms relating crimes than carry permit holders.
You have to dig pretty deep to find stories like that, as far as I can tell because:
A. Actual gun ownership is so rare now
B. Gun fatalities by licensed owners is so rare
Can you at least cite the reported story?
How is that antigun or anti-second amendment?
All I see is promotion of responsible gun ownership and safety. (also, note: I am pro gun)
You still forgot to log in. You should probably fix that.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4172531&cid=44770981 But even if it's interpreted, all males aged 17-45 are members of the militia by law.
1. Yeah, well that's Detroit.
2. Natural selection appears to be working.
Isn't this the same TSA that the government was recently seriously considering disbanding?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
We already have a union to protect us from the US government. It's called the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They even use "union" in their name. Have you paid your dues lately?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
There are many thousands of fully-automatic firearms owned legally by private individuals in the US., unlike your nuclear device example. Heck, the FPSRussia guy had a YT video where he demo'ed a legally civilian-owned fully-auto 40mm Bofors cannon that he was selling.
Fail.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Your guess would be correct but it still stands that, their security isn't paid for entirely by them. They are free to implement a lot less cost effective measures than they otherwise could afford AND have more reason to do it.
> ...take the place of all the crap we have, pay for and endure currently with the TSA as it stands.
I would feel perfectly safe having nothing at all take that place. OOoh maybe a coffee stand could take that place. That would be nice.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
They stopped my wife from taking home a jar of apple jelly she got while on our honeymoon. It said "10 oz." on the jar. Weight, mind you, not volume... it very well may have been under the 3.4 fluid ounce/100ml limit. But try convincing a TSA agent of that.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
The CMP importation ban has no conceivable bearing on public safety.
The 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't have an effect on public safety.
If the reason isn't safety what do you propose it is?
(/. is pretty much dead, no sense beating a dead horse by maintaining an account)
Is that a new kind of shaver?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I'm curious - in an open-carry situation; what is the legality of firing at someone (who is presumably shooting at someone else - e.g. a TSA officer) in a crowded area? If they're not shooting at (or threatening) the person carrying a gun, when is the citizen legally allowed to shoot?
-Turkey
The only way to stop an active shooter is with deadly force, meaning good guys with guns, as this particular case (among others) demonstrated well. The rapid application of deadly force to stop the bad guy probably saved many lives.
what part of "shall not infringe" is so hard to grasp?? I am sick of the do as i say not as i do attitude of this government.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Airports are, in fact, not gun free zones. You can travel with a firearm. It may not be on you, true, but it can be in a checked case. The case must be locked and you must declare the firearm at the inspection area, surrender the keys to allow the TSA to examine the weapon to ensure it is unloaded and that ammunition, if present, is in it's original unopened box (I don't agree with allowing ammunition on a plane.) After verification the weapon is relocked in its case and the keys are returned to you. The specific rules vary from airline to airline but most allow it. I know a ton of people who have flown with them as well.
Source: Self, (Firearms owner who flew his weapons home when taking leave before a deployment to Afghanistan in 2009)
If I remember correctly there was one. It was committed by a cop.
Why would you let facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument? How anti-Slashdot of you.
-Turkey
> He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.
No, we didn't get national reciprocity...
They need to arm all TSA employees with nuclear weapons After all, they are responsible for the security of our airplanes. I once witnessed a 75 year old man attempt to smuggle a belt around his waist.
The legality of every shooting is determined after the fact by the police or the courts. There is never an A-OK to start shooting people, but if it is later determined that your response wasn't reckless and you saved lives, then you (likely) won't be charged. You damn better be sure of your abilities, though, because shooting into a crowd of people is pretty fucking stupid.
Hear Hear!
For instance - how many Columbines have occurred in the past forty years?
How many post offices have been shot up in the last twenty years?
How many Shopping malls?
Seriously. We as a society must choose whether to be a society or live in tyranny.
Why should how we're treated at an airport be any different than how we're treated in any other place?
Give me back my damn shoes already - no, wait - give me back my damn dignity.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
1. They stopped my wife's 86 year old aunt from bringing a small pair of decorative sewing scissors onto a plane, and confiscated them for the good of all. (she might have been tempted to run to the front of the plane and attempt to hack the door to the cockpit with the 1 1/2" blades.
See, that was a complete success.
Actually, they stop people from bringing loaded handguns onto planes, too... but that's more coincidental, as most of those have no intention of misusing them.
"Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously, but really, this kind of thing seems to work for Israel, who would likely be bombed into terrorist kingdom come if they didn't put in measure like this that seem to actually work without pissing everyone off."
You're kind of getting off your own "simple" track, there.
Here's one, about as simple as it can get: get rid of the TSA completely. After all, they haven't demonstrated that they have done a single bit of actually "keeping us secure" since their inception.
All the potential terrorists that have been caught, were caught by other people.
The government and people have different obligations and prohibitions. The word hypocrisy doesn't make any sense in terms of the relationship between these to groups.
Are you made that the government is allowed to enforce the law and you as an individual are not? Is that hypocritical of the government to keep law enforcement to itself?
Barney Fifes in the country.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
that is solely because they are highly regulated.
I guess we all get suitcase nukes, as it doesn't specify which arms, right? any argum,ent that can be made for any weapon, can be made for any weapon.
next you'll be defending all the idiots that "forget" they are carrying and get busted at the airport. they should be deprived of ever owning a gun again.
will you then pusg your wild west fantasy, that if everyone was armed crime would drop, when the exact opposite is true?
In 10+ years, with over 60,000 employees, this has happened only one time. It doesn't seem as if TSA employees have a job that puts them in particular risk. I'm sure that it is much more dangerous to be a mail carrier than a TSA agent. I don't object to unions looking after their employee's welfare and safety. That is the point, after all. But demanding armed guards as a knee jerk reaction to a single incident seems like a laughable response without any real analysis behind it.
Classic bureaucracy. Now we need protectors to protect the protectors. The question is who will protect the protectors hired to protect the protectors? It sounds to me as though those protectors will need protection at some point since one guard with a gun isn't much protection. Perhaps they'll need something with more clout such as a Department of Homeland Security Security which will have the necessary resources to provide security to Homeland Security.
How many civilians do you know who feel up children and call it security? And get paid to do so?
That is because we are NOT a polite society. We (as a society) aren't well armed. We are not allowed to carry except when the government permits us (a violation of 4th amendment)
And two well armed people a society doesn't make.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
An individual bad actor is not systemic problem. Bad Actors in a Police State is systemic.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
its not about enforcing the law, not this anyway its about protection, why should the TSA be allowed to protect themselves and we the people cant?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
FYI, machine guns and other automatic weapons can be lawfully owned by civilians.
are you kidding?
Conceal carry in parks - yes - conceal carry laws of the state containing the park apply within the park.
National conceal carry - No - there is no such law.
See handgunlaw.us for more detail on those two.
Pushing gun control - Are you kidding? - Standing on a stage repeatedly with children from Newtown? His appointment of Biden to the task force?
How about the recent executive orders since congress didn't pass anything as an example of action?
Restriction on imports of antique firearms?
Rule change within the ATF regarding NFA items making them unobtainable if the local sheriff will not approve?
The fact is he makes noises about gun control and has for his entire career. you can bet good money his results on that front would be different if Newtown had happened in 2008.
Are you made that the government is allowed to enforce the law and you as an individual are not? Is that hypocritical of the government to keep law enforcement to itself?
Simply put, it doesn't. To be more precise, there are some powers delegated to the government regarding things like search and seizure, but I am fully able to, under the law, "enforce the law" as a common citizen. Some might argue that it is our duty to do so even.
Are you American? If so, you should know this already, if you feel yourself able to make knowledgeable comments on this topic.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
First point is anti-gun. It bans the import of some guns. Nothing to do with who owns them or how responsible they will be with them.
The second point is anti-second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure we are able to end this country the same way it began. How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian machine gun (or other automatic firearm) since 1934.
I believe you are correct. In fact, the only one on record that I can find was done by a cop who is automatically (no pun intended) exempt from the laws regarding ownership of fully automatic firearms in the US.
"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
But if you would too have a bomb, you could either have a new conversation topic for the journey, showing off your bombs, or you could go all m.a.d., glancing each other like teenagers in their self-made dragsters.
It is not a citizens job to enforce the law. It is the government's job to enforce the law. I am American, but the role of government in regards to law enforcement is not unique in the US.
I think that he's referring to the Remington Model 7600 pump-action rifle. It was called the Model 760 until 1981.
This model is very popular because it can be stored in the relatively safe Condition 3 (hammer down, full magazine, empty chamber), yet brought to Condition 0 (ready to fire) with one pump.
On the other hand, I think that guards at the kind of checkpoint that the AFGE (the TSA employees' union) envisions would be using auto/semi-auto carbines or SMGs, instead of a rifle more suited to deer-hunting.
The part about law enforcement was an example. Why should the government allowed to put people in prison, but we the people can't? Why can the government start wars with a foreign country but we the people can't? Why should the government be allowed to decide what the immigration laws are, but we the people can't?
There are LOTS of things the government has the power to do, that people are NOT allowed to do and for very good reasons. I am not saying that every single thing the government does is good. I am saying that just because the government has the power to do something does not necessarily mean that the people should have that power automatically.
Maybe there's a good reason to allow people to have guns, but it's not just because the government gets to have them. If this were true people should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as well.
Wow. He "publicly stated his opposition"? That's it, better buy guns everyone. Obama is on a rampage.
OTOH
Even with the public outrage over Sandy Hook still tugging at the heartstrings in the country. Obama was unsuccessful in his goal to simply enforce existing background check requirements for weapons purchased at gun shows. Not to add additional requirements, just closing the loophole which allowed the mentally ill and convicted felons to purchase guns. Even that was unsuccessful.
But go one about how he's after your guns. We're still listening.....
... I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc...
Yeah, me too. To tell the honest truth, when I heard about the shooting at the LA airport my thought was "Oh, this is California, where they shoot at each other on the highway. Sounds like one of those people made it into the airport". While that was probably unjust (sorry, California), the point remains. We have plenty of nuts in America that will do stupid things. Let's not overreact and swat a fly with a Buick, so to speak.
... I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue ...
Me either, but that's a little extreme. I'm perfectly fine with armed police officers doing crowd control at events, etc. I guess it's a matter of degree of arming for me. When police officers, etc. start carrying RPGs or the like, that's when I start staying home :)
Politicians complicate life - logic is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
In what states and under what conditions? You do realize that machine guns are large guns that either stationary or mounted on vehicles, right? Or are you confusing them with assault rifles and machine pistols?
Even if a criminal could get his hands on one, he would probably ignore it, that isn't much use for a machine gun unless you are drug lord with his own army. Other fully automatic weapons are under similar restrictions depend on state and they are limited on magazine size making the automatic part much less usefull.
In a digression from the discussion about the current administration's gun policy:
The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure we are able to end this country the same way it began. How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
It's arguable that the historical reason for the Second Amendment had more to do with avoiding the need for a standing army, with all the expense and centralized power that entails, especially at a time when 1) the federal government, such as it was, had a shoestring budget, and 2) the states were still very leery of granting any more power (read: ceding any more sovereignty) than absolutely necessary to this new centralized entity.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
That sounds like a problem taking care of itself. Thank you, guns.
Who do you think the Union is made of?
That one guy stopped a bullet, just there.
I would like to collect my five dollars now, thanks.
Perhaps you read the wrong emphasis into my statement. I didn't say to outlaw fully auto weapons - I said "prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons".
Sensible parents don't go out and buy a semiautomatic weapon, and give it to their kids, either. I realize that some parents do exactly that, but they aren't SENSIBLE parents. A first weapon should be a single shot match .22, and the kid's only destination with that weapon for a long time should be a shooting range. Kids should earn the privilege of carrying larger, more powerful, and more sophisticated weapons.
I am also a motorcycle rider. I like the way Europe approaches youth on motorcycles. Kids start out on machines with limited horsepower, then move up through a couple less limited classes before they are permitted to own an unrestricted street machine. Here in the states, a kid's first bike is often a ten thousand dollar machine with 70 or more horsepower, capable of running over 150 mph.
Everyone should have the right to own a weapon, just as everyone should have the right to ride a motorcycle - but not everyone is capable of handling a fully auto weapon, or a Hayabusa.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There has been one, actually - google for Searcy v. City of Dayton. It was a cop who committed the murder, but he was off-duty, and the weapon was his own personal one.
No rational person should care about "gun crime" or "gun deaths" or "gun homicides". What we care about is all violent crime, deaths and homicides, regardless of the tool used. A murder is a murder.
And once you do that - stop looking at tools and start looking at equivalent crimes - what GP said is spot on. Poverty is what causes violent crime, not guns.
With hundreds frightened morons whipping out their guns ...
The fear of a stereotypical "wild west shootout" seems to be a recurring theme in favor of gun control, but can you give an actual, real-world example of "hundreds of frightened morons whipping out their guns" in a non-gun-free zone?
ust getting the normal cops to not shoot too many innocent bystanders is hard enough.
That's not because the cops have guns - cops in many other countries do, too - but because they know that they can get away with it with just a slap on the wrist in most cases.
I'm pro-gun and a gun owner, but this is 100% true. If you hang out on pretty much any gun forum, the fearmongering starts months before an election. "OMG! Teh socialist Muslim Obama may be elected and will take away our guns! I've got to go buy another AR and a crate of ammo!". Seen it both in 2008 and in 2012, and there's enough of it that prices do actually noticeably go up in the last couple of months before the election.
I don't think it's a marketing gimmick, though, more just the nature of the community that tends to be overly extreme right wing (either conservative or libertarian) and very tin-foil hat paranoid. Gun companies certainly do exploit that - again, on many websites, even of the more respectable large companies like S&W, you could see the "buy now before Obama bans it" type of ads in 2012. But the community can sustain that hysteria all on its own. Especially lately, when it's heavily overrun by teabaggers who are paranoid about anything and everything, and don't miss an opportunity to share their predictions of doom and gloom.
No, he's not joking.
The first armed responders to show up at the Fort Hood shooting were civilian base police.
Aaron Alexis wasn't confronted with serious armed resistance until civilian police showed up -- just one guard that he apparently got the jump on.
Tennesee armory: "Tennessee National Guard workers managed to take down a shooting suspect and hold him until police arrived..."
Fort Bragg: "Minor said that the gunman, who was firing at them, turned away. And as he did, he and Sgt. Edward Mongold tackled the man. "It was a fight for his life," Minor said. "It was a fight for our lives. Minor, Mongold and several other soldiers disarmed the shooter and held him for the military police.."
Apparently, the military bases in the incidents you linked to are real-life military bases, where for example many guards aren't allowed to load their weapons without specific orders, rather than the bristling-with-weapons-super-high-security-one-false-move-and-you're-dead military bases in your imagination.
True, some parts of military bases ARE exactly like you imagine. That's not where shootings have tended to happen, though, for obvious reasons.
Watch out, it's got fluoride!
Well, duh, fluoride is a communist plot to sap our vital bodily fluids.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
How many civilians do you know who feel up children and call it security? And get paid to do so?
I fly a lot, and I always opt for the pat-down, at least in part because
I believe it creates more work for the security goons and I think they
ought to work for their wages.
However, not once have I gotten any impression that I was being "felt up".
In point of fact, during the pat down the TSA person dons a fresh pair of gloves and then
rubs the surface of the clothing I am wearing, but they don't linger over
any areas of the body or act like a pervert or anything. They are simply
rubbing the gloves in order to pick up trace amounts of elements which would
be present if the person being checked happened to be carrying explosives.
I don't like having to go through security, and I believe that the TSA are a bunch
of morons who do little or nothing to increase actual safety, BUT I have to say that
all the talk about "being felt up" is grossly inaccurate in my many experiences and
that from what I have witnessed myself, the TSA goon always seems to be more uncomfortable
about the whole thing than I am. It's a simple 30 second pat down and then you can move on
and walk to the boarding area.
If you think the pat-down they do is "being felt up" I submit that you have no idea what being felt up
is really like. Actually, I recommend you try being strip-searched if you want to experience a true feeling
of being violated. Drop your pants and bend over and spread your cheeks and cough, motherfucker.
And then you won't feel nearly as much like whining about a simple pat down, because you will know
that it's not nearly as bad as what could be happening if things ratchet up just a bit tighter on the security
front.
.
I support repealing all gun laws. The consequences of repealing all gun laws will create the possibility of repealing the 2nd amendment, which is where the real problem is.
No, the real problem is people like you who believe that there are simple
solutions to complex problems. In the real world this is hardly ever the case,
and most intelligent people who are willing and able to engage in critical thinking
understand this is true.
The guns are not the problem. The problem is that the US is a very violent society
and that violence permeates all the strata of society. If it wasn't guns that
were used to do harm, it could just as easily be a Molotov cocktail or a chainsaw
or an SUV driven into a crowd of people. The tendency toward violence is the root
problem, and guns are only one of innumerable means of doing harm.
.
After the Aurora shooter was found to have specifically researched and chosen a theater which forbade concealed carry (50 miles away) people started looking into this. It turns out that mass shootings are limited to about three victims if people are allowed to shoot back. This is directly contradictory to your point, so do you have the data to back it up?
It would more accurately match the reality that a human can come up and execute you at any moment, anywhere. Since that is the plain truth, why not be prepared for it?
Good-bye
not true, there are some unions comprised of very nice people out there who value workmanship and professionalism. IAHFIAW and IBEW were wonderful people to work with, for example
Thank god they have plausible deniability, then.
In what states and under what conditions?
In nearly all states. There are a few states that have banned them, but most just allow federal law to rule. As for the conditions, you have to pay a $200 tax and send some forms to the BATFE. Assuming you clear a background check, you can have your automatic weapon. Most people who buy them set up a trust and have the trust buy them, though, because if an individual owns the gun you have to tell the BATFE every time you transport it, and transferring ownership is a pain. Automatic weapons owned by trusts are less hassle.
Since the 1986 ban on entry of new full auto weapons into civilian hands, the guns have gotten extremely expensive. Fixed supply and increasing demand will do that. So in practice, cost is the primary obstacle to owning one. Expect to drop upwards of $8K, and it's not at all hard to get over $20K for a single gun.
You do realize that machine guns are large guns that either stationary or mounted on vehicles, right?
That's not true. Machine guns are distinct from assault rifles and machine pistols, and they are generally crew-served weapons but they don't have to be too big or heavy to be man-portable. I was an M-60 gunner for several years, and while the '60 is considered "crew-served" that's because the assistant gunner carries the spare barrels and additional ammunition, not because the gun itself isn't fully transportable by a single person. I humped the 60 plus 400 rounds of belted ammunition all by myself, for many miles.
Later we swapped out the 60s for the M-239 "SAW", which is considerably lighter than the 60s. That saved some wear and tear on my back.
There's an additional distinction, which is between light, medium and heavy machine guns. The SAW is a light machine gun. The M-60 is sometimes considered a light machine gun and sometimes medium. I also fired the M2, and that is a heavy machine gun, and clearly not man-portable... though it is perfectly legal for a civilian to own one, after jumping through the same hoops.
Even if a criminal could get his hands on one, he would probably ignore it, that isn't much use for a machine gun unless you are drug lord with his own army.
Yup. The 1934 NFA was passed because criminals were using a lot of machine guns, but that was mostly because they were easily available, not because they're particularly useful for criminals. So the mild obstacles established by the NFA were enough to stop almost all criminal machine gun use.
Note that machine guns are not hard for criminals to get. They're much cheaper and much easier to obtain on the black market. But they're not that useful for non-military applications.
Other fully automatic weapons are under similar restrictions depend on state and they are limited on magazine size making the automatic part much less useful.
No, they're not limited by magazine size. Yes, a tiny number of states have magazine size restrictions, but most of those states have state bans of full auto firearms anyway. But in most of the country, if you have jumped through the federal hoops and paid the money to buy a full auto firearm, there are no capacity restrictions. The federal law makes no distinctions on capacity... if it fires more than one bullet per pull of the trigger it's full auto and must go through the NFA licensing process.
You really should consider learning something about things before you pop off, you know.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There has not been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian nuclear device either.
That's because there aren't any. Unlike lawfully-owned civilian machine guns. There are tens of thousands of those.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
would have turned into the OK Corral
Prove that. .. The most effective deterrent to actual violence is a credible threat of retaliatory violence. That is how humans actually work in the real world. Widespread gun ownership reduces violence.
Majority of shooters are willing to die, or even kill themselves. That's how shooters ACTUALLY work.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Yosemite allows no weapons whatsoever without a permit, and they won't issue permits. That means OC/pepperspray, knives, and clearly no firearms.
And this is why people die in Yosemite from bear attacks.
Be more careful when selecting your family holiday destination next time. You can go anywhere in the world, for likely no more cost than airfare to the US from where you are + one week Disney World pass.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I surprised to see hardcore trolls having some common sense.
Because the TSA employees get treated so badly - no funding, get sacked immediately when they do something wrong, etc.
Oh, I should clarify that although "machine gun" is a classification that is technically distinct from "battle rifle", "assault rifle", "submachine gun" and "machine pistol", it's also a catchall for "fully-automatic firearm", particularly since under the law they're all in the same category. And it was that catchall that I was referring to the post to which you replied.
However, several others corrected me... there actually has been a crime committed by a lawfully-owned fully-automatic weapon, a machine pistol, actually. It was committed by a police officer using his personally-owned full auto MAC-11. Still, one in 80 years is a pretty good track record. To me that says the current restrictions are perfectly adequate, and perhaps excessive. In fact, I think the 1986 ban is clearly excessive. I hope a future second amendment lawsuit strikes down that ban. A perfect 52-year record is more than enough to demonstrate that whatever basis the government thinks it has for restricting full auto firearms, and whatever standard of scrutiny the Supreme Court chooses to apply to second amendment issues, there's no justification for restrictions beyond those imposed by the NFA.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Not anymore.
Noone wants into your crappy country anymore!
Grr. I made one mistake... and made it twice! The 1934 law was the Gun Control Act, not the National Firearms Act. GCA, not NFA. The GCA was a fairly good law. The NFA, not so much.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The TSA has armed guards. They just aren't the TSA, which is NOT a police agency, and why they are not armed. We have Airport Police for exactly this reason. And they did their job. You cannot stop a nut with a gun, and it is a rare event. The solution is not to take away guns (Airports are gun free zones, aren't they?) but rather to understand that you cannot prevent bad things from happening, without living in a tyranny state.
Read this as a Tranny state and I shuddered; the horror!
actually i remember going through airport security, pre-911, pre-TSA, there was always a couple of sheriff's deputies on duty at the checkpoint.
most other airports in other cities were similar. either local PD, sheriff's office, someone.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
He has signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrack trains.
He signed legislation that makes concealed carry permits valid in one state valid in all states.
It NOT true.
Agreed. Just another case of the UNION protecting it's members, by spinning the wheel of blame, and finding a way not to be at fault.
Truth be told, we were more secure when the airlines were responsible for security. But we didn't get all those great bribes to the Democratic party by the loyal thugs of the SEIU.
Murphy was an optimist
is ONE suicide bomber at a TSA checkpoint.
Armed guards aren't going to help much and it's already happened in Russia.
BTW, what happens if you put some putrescene or corpscine in your shoes before going to the airport?
In my travels, I have been through many international airports. This will make US airports look a lot more like those in other countries, where the enforcers carry guns - often automatic weapons. Might as well use the way they do it in India - military at the airport entrances, and you don't get in unless you have a ticket for that day. Obvious Military visibility makes it much easier to control the population.
I was in line in Toronto the other day, listening to the gate agent trying to help a passenger. The passenger needed to make a connection and wanted to get his seat assigned. Trouble was, the passenger had made it into Canada from the US aboard an airplane - without any ticket at all. Not lost ... it had not been issued in the first place.
Awkward for all concerned ...
Thank you. As a foreigner, I applaud your idea and look forward to legally receiving my weapon when I enter the airport. You weren't thinking of discriminating, were you???
Non-civilian = "position of authority"
So to airport travelers, no TSA arent civilians. Not quite law enforcement (due to that supreme court ruling), but they do control your ability to travel.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You realize that the last major threats on aircraft that got by TSA were all stopped by the passengers? That any major event that a shooter has gone nuts and started killing people within an armed area were a maximum 1 to 2 people? That shooters have specifically targeted areas with limited access to firearms to maximize the amount of damage they can do before being stopped?
Have you ever heard of a shootout at an NRA convention? Mass killing in a gun store? A hijacking of a military transport?
You are joking right? You're not just being ignorant or stupid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21119400-two-wounded-in-shooting-at-tennessee-armory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/
You are joking right? You're not just being ignorant or stupid?
The only time military personnel are allowed to posses firearms while on a base is for training purposes (even then may or may not have ammo), MPs/guards while ON DUTY (they must surrender their weapon and ammo to the armory when going off duty), married personnel (after filing required paperwork and getting permission) living on base within their own home, or checking the (even privately owned) weapon in or out of the armory to bring it on or off base. In other words, military bases inside the US are *effectively* gun free zones and have been for about 20 years thanks to Bush 41. When Alexis went on his spree, there may have been a total of 13 people on the entire base of 13,000 carrying a firearm (including Alexis). Probably about the same odds James Holmes had doing the same crap in a theater and encountering an off duty police officer that ignored the "No Guns" sign. That didn't happen, just talking about the odds... Basically chance in hell of encountering significant opposition. The odds in many places are in the favor of the psychopath. They only have to be rational for about 5 minutes to realize that, and it's time that is universally understood.
there is no federal law that prevents most people from having a fully automatic weapon. thats a popular myth. its very easy to own a fully auto weapon. simply pay the fee (tax) and be on your way. (YMMV due to state and local laws)
most of hte laws are at the state and local level anyway. and isnt part of that whole self governance thing the ability for different levels of the country to get together and decide what specific rules they want to live by?
you seem to be saying we should have more uniform gun laws (albeit by a lack of them), and that would indiciate a stronger central authority (Federal government) to enforce one set of (minimalistic) laws.
Devils Advocate aside, there are other places with super strict gun laws in the nation, and lower crime rates than chicago (and not just because chicago is number 1, and this everyone else is de facto lower). Now dont mistake me, i agree strict gun laws amounting to a near ban are very much a contributing factor. but we also cannot ignore demographics, particularly economic and educational, which have always been, and will always be, the signle biggest risk factors for crime rates.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Tell that to the two guys in Detroit who died last month when a minor incident of road rage between two licensed gun carrying drivers (with families in the cars) escalated into a gun battle where they killed each other.
I assume that since they each had a gun that they each felt they could enforce their opinion over the other. When it turned out that they both had a gun, it escalated beyond standoff to death... not too polite.
Too bad it didn't happen before they had families and got them out of the gene pool.
the fee being for the federal firearms license, which is pretty easy to get.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"he disagrees with me therefore he is a shill, and what about those [insert conspiracy theory here]" ..
and thus we know you have nothing relevent to say
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Interesting that you think the term "assault rifle" was in the minds of the people who actually wrote the second amendment.
Just make it illegal to bring a gun into an airport. That should fix things.
What made you think I thought that? Arms are arms, we have the right to keep and bear them for the defence of a free state.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1a) From your own link: "Currently, when the U.S. provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval."
so we are talking about weapons we sell to other nations ARMIES being reimported as privately owned firearms. ie, these aint your pappy's squirrel gun.
1b) From your own link: "the ATF is proposing to conduct background checks on firearms registered to a trust or corporation. The administration said felons and others prohibited from having firearms currently are able to avoid background checks by choosing this route."
Closing a loophole that allows convicted felons to obtain firearms, in violation of current federal law, is NOT an expansion of gun control.
Convicted felons are federally barred from owning firearms. period.
By going through a third party intermediary convicted felons were obtaining firearms, in violation of the law.
This closes that loop hole.
2) GP never stated amtrak allowed open or concealed carry. He simply said "allowed on amtrak". At least you dont call this one a lie.
3) hes referring to, I believe, the National Firearm Reciprocity Act, or something like that. It's passed the house a couple times. its died in committee each time prior to going to the Senate. problem here is right now CCW licenses are still a state issued license. each state has its own requirements, some more or less strict that others.
4) No argument.
5) Stand your ground is not a gun law or gun right. it is pre-trial motion to establish a defense of self defense by removing the normal common law requirement of self defense for you to "attempt to leave the area". under normal self-defense rules, it only applies as a legal defense when it is the last resort, and if you have an opportunity to flee then obviously lethal force in self defense is not the option of last restort, therefore you have a requirement to do so and self defense does not apply. stand your ground laws simply remove that component of the self-defense defense. many stand your ground laws are ambiguous or otherwise lack any real legal definition.
As yet no one has challenged florida's stand your ground law in court.
6) You ignored number 6. The GP is correct. The President has done very little.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Look I really do not understand why all the US posters do nothing by whine and whine. Either do something or shutup.
So I am going to take your money once again not for your sense of false security but mine.
Security in prison is tighter than anything these moron can do. Yet prison cant stop rape murder or drugs.
Do you really think you get anything other than a pony show for your billions.
Please contact me at bridgeseller.com
How are we supposed to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles?
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles. Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
TSA finds guns, often times loaded with a round chambered, in peoples' carry on baggage by the dozens every single week. Last week alone TSA found 29 firearms on people at security check points. There's nothing unusual about that volume, either.
http://blog.tsa.gov/search/label/Week%20In%20Review
Just because you personally don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Now, I despise being groped by strange men at airport check points as much as anyone, so I have no love of the TSA. But to say they never find anything is total BS.
"...you cannot prevent bad things from happening, without living in a tyranny state."
So to prevent bad things, one winds up with a worse thing! :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Name one thing the TSA has stopped. One.
Well... They almost stopped me from traveling once because I asked a question about something. The guy then said, "do you want to travel today?" I said, "yes." He said, "then be quiet." If I had been single and not traveling with others, I might have protested, but instead I played "good sheep."
So, they're good at intimidating innocent people.
So were the Nazis.
And I'm finding equal use for the TSA, as well as a growing sense of fuck-you-I'm-in-charge attitude from all levels within that org. It's time someone stepped on their dick for once, perhaps with a sound boot to their fucking budget.
How were the original writers of the second amendment meant to have an effective armed rebellion without assault rifles.
Because a standing army would not have had assault rifles, a citizen milita would not need assault rifles to secure the freedom of their state.
Why even write the thing in the first place, if assault rifles are not available!
This is why they used a generic term "arms" instead of something specific like "muskets". It's really not that hard to understand if you're not being deliberately obtuse.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They aren't finding what they are supposed to be finding, terrorists. All of those people that they "catch" with guns aren't terrorists, they're just stupid.
The TSA hasn't caught anyone who really was trying to smuggle weapons aboard.
Are you a member of the National Guard??
No?? Un-check.
Well-regulated Militia then == National Guard today.
epic fail............
logic fail...........
A well armed society is a polite society.
I've heard that tune before...
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Everyone'd be equal, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
Not me, I got me a rifle!
Well hang on, if you got yourself a rifle then I wanna get me a semi-automatic weapon!
You get a semi-automatic weapon and I'm gonna want an automatic weapon!
You get yourself an automatic weapon, I'm gonna get a super-automatic weapon!
Well if you get a super-automatic weapon, then I'm gonna get a
super-duper-automatic weapon with a CD-ROM drive!
If you get yourself one of those I'm gonna get a
super-duper-automatic weapon with a CD-ROM drive, and a big old hard
drive, and a big guitar amp so I can play BTOs...
epic fail............
...History fail.
logic fail...........
when the Framers of the Constitution referred to the militia in the text of the document and the ratification debates, they had very definite ideas of what they meant. Their concept of the militia as a legal and political institution was a product of English heritage, as it was modified by the uniqueness of the American experience. It differed radically from our own concept. Specifically, what we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.
and this is all a mystery to Obamites.
It seems that that guy has a stick up his backside and a vacuum between his ears(maybe a brain cell or two.) This is the type of people that Homeland Security looks for when they pick these agents. They seem to think that they have the right to play God with you and clearly violate the Bill of Rights which are the cornerstone of what this country was meant to follow. While I don't condone shooting jerks like this, they should be taken behind the wood shed and given a lesson on how to treat people like human being, not some sheep to use a cattle prod on. I won't fly anymore on account of these despicable actions against all Americans who are now treated as though each one is a terrorist.
The aphorism that a well armed society is a polite society is quite true, but it glosses over the transition from an impolite society to a polite society. There are a lot of casualties along the way.
Well and to be more specific than just the term 'poverty', it may have more to do with wealth and income inequality.
Sweden and Canada have lots of guns but low gun crime. So how is the US different? Well we have a lot more poor people. But more than that, a lot less social safety nets, especially mental health support, and a lot more (as in, we are the most unequal society of all the first world western nations) income and wealth inequality. Our poor are VERY poor compared to our rich and middle class families.
There are several Ted Talks about the correlations between income and wealth inequality vs crime, vs education, etc.. it seems to match more closely than poverty numbers. This is a very complex subject so it is hard to prove cause of course.
Here's one that talks about how inequality, in and of itself is a problem.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
I'm saying quite the opposite, actually.
I'm a US citizen. The constitution says that I have a right to be armed. No lesser authority, no lower level of government, has the authority to make a law that deprives me of that right. In fact, I'm advocating LESS government. That "more uniform gun laws" actually translates into "fewer gun laws", and less government involvement in my life, and yours.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Gun crimes correlate much better with gangs and drug turf wars than poverty.
The last thing we need is for those monsters to have guns they get to stick up our orifices as well
This distinction is always obvious yes.
It's always an arrogant prick, member of some gang like the hells angels or the us government using the term, to bully others into submission.
Authority is just an imaginary concept, its just a subtler term implying extortion, kidnapping, violence and other criminal activities that thugs such as governments regularly partake in.
... right here motherfuckers!
Now I was being devils advocate, but the question is a good one: how do you get to more uniform laws, rather than a patchwork of state and local laws, without some sort of overarching control? the supreme Court has long held that (risking a redundant defintion by paraphrasing) "reasonable restrictions are reasonable", and "localities can implement stronger or weaker laws at their discretion".
i would agree with fewer laws (particularly since many are redundant in themselves).
but my point was, right now, if a town wants to have different laws than another town next door, they can. as long as we hold that the different levels of organization below the Federal (local, county, state) are self governing, the only way to bring about uniformity is for the Fed itself to step in and say "This is how it's gonna be." Now theyve done that, but so far in fairly limited ways (as compared to the patchwork of laws at the sub-Fed level which is where the true complexity of the laws lie), such as "felons cant have guns".
another top down approach that would have that effect would be a Supreme Court decision, but that would be a reversal of 200+ years of precedent on all sorts of various, not just including gun rights but also the rights of towns and counties (etc) to self governance, so I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for that.
the only real way right now to bring it about is the so-called grass roots effort, from teh bottom up, using our local governments. but that takes time, and as history shows us, sometimes we lose and the localities vote to go against us. why i posited the Devil's Advocate position: do we abide by self governance at the lowest level possible? Or do we advocate a top down approach?
Face it: many facets of our country and our governance of it run directly at odds to each other. And it's onyl been very recently that the Court finally held what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant, who it applied to, and at what levels of government.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Additionally, some historical decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment:
Repeatedly the court held that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, only applied as restrictions on teh Federal government. Only recently has this begun changing through the concept of "incorporation", which has been slowly bringing these concepts into requirements of the States as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
United States v. Cruikshank (1876):
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other"
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States"
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes"
Note that a lot of this decision has been overturned over time. But this was one of the first decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment
Presser v. Illinois (1886):
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.
However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897):
The Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
dangit, f'ed up one of the quote tags.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
so the short of it is.... reasonable restrictions are permissible.
outright bans or de facto bans are not.
so your quest "to repeal every single damned gun law that has been written at each and every level of government for the past 75 years" is Quixotic and wont happen, because most places laws fall within the permissible restrictions.
which is, again, why i brought up the self-governance thing.
for now, you ARE bound by your state and local laws, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
they can require licenses, registration, and permit fees (as long as they dont turn into de facto bans, like Chicago's rules did)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Somehow I do feel safer with police in countries with an emphasis on long term training and education to become a police officer..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Germany#Training
Here at home the police education is a three year education at bachelor level.
In the US it depends what kind of police it is, and if it's federal, state or municipal. Mostly it's just about jumping through some hoops. I wouldn't trust them to the degree I do here at home.
I'm impressed at both your knowledge, and your effort to put all that down into print for me - as well as those others who might read it. Salutes.
The Supreme court has made some decisions in recent times that support my point of view, or at least in part. Washington D.C's virtual ban on weapons was overturned. In effect, they ruled that no jurisdiction has the authority to ban handguns, or firearms, or weapons. There must, instead, be REASONABLE laws.
Let us revisit the second amendment, for a moment. Humor me now -
"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."
Of course, there is, and has been, much debate over that language. And, both "sides" of the debate miss a very important idea when the debates rage. Both sides grant that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state - anti-gun people say that the National Guard satisfies that requirement, and that no one else has the right to bear arm. A lot of second amendment supporters properly point out that all able-bodied males between ages 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS of the militia, and therefore the law applies to all men.
What both sides miss, is the "well regulated" part. And, I'm thinking that MAYBE the Supremes have had that idea in their minds with some of their recent decisions.
"Well regulated" allows for a whole lot of rules, regulations, and laws that pro-gun people might not like very much. A requirement that all weapons be secured in a safe unless under the direct control of a lawfully authorized person would be tedious for many of us - but it would be reasonable. Background checks are another tool available to the states.
Reasonable regulations can be, and should be, put into place. Even some that pro-gunners might not like. But - Chicago, and others, with their virtual bans on weapons, are entirely out of line. No rational, sane law abiding citizen should EVER be denied the right to carry his gun, open carry, anywhere he chooses to carry. Convicts and nutcases, on the other hand - should NEVER get a weapon, period. Especially convicts and nutcases who may have a history of violence.
Any law that is routinely interpreted as a ban on legal possession of weapons by a responsible citizen needs to be overturned, and thrown out, as "unconstitutional". The constitution of the United States guarantees every free man the right to defend himself and his loved ones. It's really that simple, in my mind. Any law that deprives you, or me, or an honest citizen of Chicago, of the right to defend himself, is unconstitutional. One does NOT need the "permission" of a sheriff, a county judge, or a board of jurists to approve of a request to carry. One has that right, by virtue of being a law abiding citizen.
Back to that "well regulated" bit again. I have zero problems with the feds, or the states, or even the cities promulgating reasonable regulations. None. The federal government should draw up some acceptable guidelines, the states should work to come up with their own guidelines which would comply with the fed's more general guidelines. Then - cities such as Chicago can work within those guidelines. That would be an ideal situation.
Instead, we see the sheriff of Cook County making it a matter of policy to knock on doors, and confiscate both permits and weapons on any excuse. An ex-husband or ex-wife gets an injunction against you - here comes the sheriff. No charges, no conviction, no day in court - the sheriff comes to get your weapons because your ex filed for an injunction. Or - your "permit" expires - here comes the sheriff. If you should be charged with something more serious than a traffic violation - here comes the sheriff.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/illinois-cook-county-begins-gun-confiscation/
I'm opposed to gun registration for that very reason. I don't bel
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Name one thing the TSA has stopped. One.
Give up?
They have never stopped anything. Everything gets by them and has been stopped on the plane or failed on the plane. They only exist to get you used to "showing your papers" and getting search
This. A million times, this. The only thing the TSA has thus far been good at is employing sex offenders and stealing iPads and other electronics out of checked bags. They do nothing to improve security and are a total waste of time and money. But the government isn't about to get rid of them. Their purpose is to ensure people get accustomed to being an assumed terrorist that nees to be questioned an searched.
Are you a member of the National Guard??
No?? Un-check.
Well-regulated Militia then == National Guard today.
epic fail............
logic fail...........
The only "epic fail" and logic fail I see is you even bringing up the "well-regulated militia" bit as having anything to do with the ownership of guns being tied exclusively to membership in the National Guard. It has never had anything at all to do with that. Or any other branch of the military for that matter. Check your history. Even the most cursory glance clearly shows the intent of the authors of the Constitution was to guarantee individual, private firearm ownership. And while our government has largely taken leave of its senses in most affairs of late, our Federal courts have upheld that interpretation of the constitution.
I will say to you what I say to every misguided anti-gun nut out there that soils themselves at the sight of the dreaded "assault rifle'. In America, we are spied upon by our own government. We are subjected to the attentions of the TSA at every airport. We are stopped at police and border patrol checkpoints and are assumed to be criminals or terrorists unless we can satisfactorily prove otherwise. Our civil liberties are under constant assault and the one thing that does keep the wolves at bay, namely the right to keep and bear arms, is the one thing people like you want to get rid of. If you want to go quietly into that good night, where the people no longer have the ability to defend themselves against their own government, then that's your perogative. But you should not expect the rest of us to do the same.
You have just been flagged by the NSA. hahahahaha
Yet another reason added to an already long list of reasons why I will never visit the USA. I have visited about 20 countries all over the world and heve never felt unsafe. I doubt that would be the case in the massively overarmed and violent USA. I imagine I would be lucky to make it out alive.
One guard is not enough.
I have lived during the Berlin Wall. I have passed Checkpoint Charlie. That is how a checkpoint should look like. Just in case you thought it can't get any worse.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I didn't read all of the comments, but got through a good many. Something that the TSA Union and all of the posting that I read missed is that arming the TSA, adding additional checkpoints out beyond the current TSA ones, and other similar type requests would not have stopped what happened. A guy with a hidden weapon (a gun this time, but could be a bomb next time, or poison gas, etc.) walked up to the first TSA agent he encountered and killed him. It is very, very difficult to prevent that from happening. Just ask the guys that man checkpoints for the military – people that usually have a lot of firepower ready to be used unless some dumb presidential order tells them not to (e.g. Beirut Marine Barracks bombing).
Taking the job as a guard means that you are volunteering to be put in harm's way. That is the nature of the job. To keep your life, do all you legally/morally can to protect yourself and your charges.
They have definitely stopped me from wearing my lace up to the crotch 73 pair of eyelet S&M boots onto the plane.
They stopped me from having my toiletries in a pint baggie instead of a quart baggie once.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
They stopped my elderly mother from bringing like one ounce of shampoo on board because it was in the original 8 ounce container. I guess the oxygen in the extra 7 ounces of air could be used to enhance combustion.
And those weren't caught by magnetometers before we had TSA?
While going thru the routine of passing through security to board a domestic flight, I misunderstood the command to have my laptop open. instead, I had opened the hard-shell briefcase which I carry the computer in. exposing the laptop (closed) and a ziplok with several bottles of prescription medication. Each jar of medication (containing only a week's supply of pills) which were in the original pharmacy containers. The TSA agent barked that I was supposed to have the laptop open (my bad) and when I reached to open the computer she got even more aggressive and commanded that I get my hands off because now, "It's in our hands now and you are not allowed to touch it". At that point she picked up the case and computer and disappeared for 20 to 30 minutes. When she returned, still irate, and gave me back my computer. Wow, I guess I was the only chump she could harass that morning and, no doubt, ran a thorough check on all of my meds (just to make sure that I wasn't a drug dealer with my 'sample kit' with me). By her attitude, one would have thought that I had potentially committed a capital offense. This woman (middle aged) was was just a bully with a badge and an overdose of attitude. A polite admonishment would have sufficed and left me a modicum of respect for TSA. Oh well, you get what you pay for.
Fear, fear and more fear. Even the fear mongers live in fear of those they are supposed to inspire fear into.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.