They got a sizable donation from us because it was our last stop before crossing the border back into New York and we opted to give them all of our Canadian money rather than go to a currency exchange to get it changed back. I gave them $35 and change, my buddy did almost as much. Also spent some money in the gift shop.
I always walk away with a better feeling when I give my money to a museum than the usual tourist traps that one visits when on vacation.
I was in Kingson Ontario over the weekend and discovered the Military Communications and Electronics Museum on a Canadian forces base. Hadn't planned on going or even heard of the place before -- we just drove by and decided to stop. Among other things they had an Enigma machine.
I would highly recommend stopping there if you happen to be in the area. Admission was free, though we opted to make a donation.
If they want to be treated as POWs they should follow the customary laws of war. When they start fighting in uniforms under the command of officers and taking steps to avoid civilian casualties we can talk about treating them as POWs.
Until that happens they are unlawful combatants and should be treated as such. Do you know what happened to such combatants in WW2? They were subject to summary execution. Read about the German soldiers that fought under a false flag during the Battle of the Bulge. Read about Japanese soldiers that committed perfidy and what happened to them.
If you are worried about bombs you can detect those with explosive sniffers. You don't need machines that can see genitalia to detect explosives.
I must respectfully disagree that it doesn't matter if security is a 'facade'. We've surrendered to fear -- in the long run that's going to damage us far more than a few downed airliners or buildings.
That was before the revolution. Whoever modded you up has no concept of history. After the war had begun and battle was joined those Redcoats would have been treated as POWs without access to the courts. If they violated the laws of war they would have been tried by military commission, as Major Andre was (did you even click on the link I provided?)
You are an idiot. I didn't mention anything about my "rights". I just said I'd like to see CCW holders allowed to carry on airplanes. No rant about rights. Just a randomly stated desire in a discussion about airport security.
I could explain to you the difference between Clint Eastwood fantasies and concealed carry but I suspect that such distinctions would be lost on you.
And my point was that even if they didn't know what was going to happen they still wouldn't have allowed the hijacking if they had been armed.
Even in the pre 9/11 "They just want to land in Cuba and use us as bargaining chips" environment, would you permit your plane to be hijacked if you had the tool on your hip to prevent it from happening? Not bloody likely.
The presence of guns would not have meaningfully changed that.
Sure it would have. Do you think the hijacking would have been successful if there had been armed good guys (civilians or law enforcement, doesn't matter) on the plane? Even without the knowledge of what the hijackers intended to do?
I wouldn't take him too seriously. Sounds like he's suffering from internet tough guy syndrome. I doubt he would have the balls to actually do that. If he did then he should be charged with menacing at the very least....
No, actually they don't have rights under US law and the Government has all the authority it needs to hold and try them via the President's war powers (Article I) and the requirement that the Federal Government protect the states against invasion (Article VI)
Let's just say that I'm not worried about the terrorists having access to that sort of human capital, particularly when you consider the intelligence (or lack thereof) that went into the recent attempts......
I would hope that the descendants of the founding fathers would have lost their self respect
The Founding Fathers did not give captured British soldiers access to the civilian courts. They held them until the end of hostilities. Those that violated the laws of war were tried by military commission and punished accordingly.
He telegraphed the fact that his promises mean nothing when he reversed himself on FISA months before the general election. Anybody that still voted for him has only themselves to blame.
I gotta give him credit though, most politicians wait until they've won the election before they start backstabbing their supporters.
A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he would hold true to his word and try to restore a lot of what we had lost, shut down Gbay, etc
With respect, what did "we" (the people, presumably) lose with Gitmo? When has it ever been held that foreign nationals with no connection to our country other than the desire to destroy it whom aren't even captured on American soil have Constitutional Rights? The people who conspired to murder President Lincoln and decapitate the Federal Government were tried by military commission. German saboteurs that came ashore during WW2 were tried by military commission. Why should foreign terrorists be treated any differently?
I'm in full agreement with the President and his base on the issue of torture but I get off the bus when they start talking about extending Constitutional Rights to foreign terrorists and/or enemy combatants. If we ever get involved in another conventional war (i.e: nation-state vs. nation-state) should we also grant the POWs that we capture the right of habeas corpus and judicial review?
Mythbusters tried this and concluded that nothing exciting would happen. The plane would depressurize, O2 masks would deploy and the pilot would have to drop altitude. BFD
If you allowed those who have concealed carry permits to have their guns on the plane, there is slightly a higher probability that someone will bring one on and try to hijack the plane, but there is also a higher chance that if someone tries to hijack the plane the person in the seat behind them will reach over the seat and put a gun to their head.
I'd love to see CCW holders allowed to legally carry on airplanes. 9/11 would have ended differently if somebody on those planes had been armed. I doubt it will ever happen but I can dream.
If it doesn't happen you still don't need to go any further than metal and explosives detectors. Even a trained Special Forces operator isn't going to be able to defeat dozens of people before someone takes him down. It's absurd to attach all of this security to flying.
Don't lawyers usually get to go around the security checkpoint by flashing their bar card or some such? I recall reading something about that the last time some nutjob shot up a court house. He used a bar card to bypass security.
I guess it makes sense that the Government shouldn't be able to go through a lawyers papers (attorney client privilege and all that) but I can't understand why that translates into an exemption against going through the metal detector. It doesn't violate the attorney-client privilege to send an attorney and his briefcase through a metal detector.
Slashdot Mirror
They got a sizable donation from us because it was our last stop before crossing the border back into New York and we opted to give them all of our Canadian money rather than go to a currency exchange to get it changed back. I gave them $35 and change, my buddy did almost as much. Also spent some money in the gift shop.
I always walk away with a better feeling when I give my money to a museum than the usual tourist traps that one visits when on vacation.
I was in Kingson Ontario over the weekend and discovered the Military Communications and Electronics Museum on a Canadian forces base. Hadn't planned on going or even heard of the place before -- we just drove by and decided to stop. Among other things they had an Enigma machine.
I would highly recommend stopping there if you happen to be in the area. Admission was free, though we opted to make a donation.
If they want to be treated as POWs they should follow the customary laws of war. When they start fighting in uniforms under the command of officers and taking steps to avoid civilian casualties we can talk about treating them as POWs.
Until that happens they are unlawful combatants and should be treated as such. Do you know what happened to such combatants in WW2? They were subject to summary execution. Read about the German soldiers that fought under a false flag during the Battle of the Bulge. Read about Japanese soldiers that committed perfidy and what happened to them.
If you are worried about bombs you can detect those with explosive sniffers. You don't need machines that can see genitalia to detect explosives.
I must respectfully disagree that it doesn't matter if security is a 'facade'. We've surrendered to fear -- in the long run that's going to damage us far more than a few downed airliners or buildings.
Concealment has never made sense to me. It's not a deterrent, that's for sure.
It's not supposed to be a 'deterrent'. You carry concealed for two reasons:
1) Element of surprise when the bad guy tries to maim or kill you.
2) You don't scare the sheeple with a concealed weapon.
That was before the revolution. Whoever modded you up has no concept of history. After the war had begun and battle was joined those Redcoats would have been treated as POWs without access to the courts. If they violated the laws of war they would have been tried by military commission, as Major Andre was (did you even click on the link I provided?)
Citation needed. Bush treated a few US citizens as enemy combatants but to the best of my knowledge they were all held at military prisons on US soil.
You are an idiot. I didn't mention anything about my "rights". I just said I'd like to see CCW holders allowed to carry on airplanes. No rant about rights. Just a randomly stated desire in a discussion about airport security.
I could explain to you the difference between Clint Eastwood fantasies and concealed carry but I suspect that such distinctions would be lost on you.
And my point was that even if they didn't know what was going to happen they still wouldn't have allowed the hijacking if they had been armed.
Even in the pre 9/11 "They just want to land in Cuba and use us as bargaining chips" environment, would you permit your plane to be hijacked if you had the tool on your hip to prevent it from happening? Not bloody likely.
The presence of guns would not have meaningfully changed that.
Sure it would have. Do you think the hijacking would have been successful if there had been armed good guys (civilians or law enforcement, doesn't matter) on the plane? Even without the knowledge of what the hijackers intended to do?
I wouldn't take him too seriously. Sounds like he's suffering from internet tough guy syndrome. I doubt he would have the balls to actually do that. If he did then he should be charged with menacing at the very least....
If you want people to read the "gist" of your message try not to preface it with stupidity.
but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
Is it sad that I've watched so much South Park that Hillary Clinton instantly comes to mind?
No, actually they don't have rights under US law and the Government has all the authority it needs to hold and try them via the President's war powers (Article I) and the requirement that the Federal Government protect the states against invasion (Article VI)
Let's just say that I'm not worried about the terrorists having access to that sort of human capital, particularly when you consider the intelligence (or lack thereof) that went into the recent attempts......
We don't need armed people on airliners in a Mexican standoff
That has to be the lamest argument I've ever heard from the anti-RKBA crowd, and that's saying a lot......
I would hope that the descendants of the founding fathers would have lost their self respect
The Founding Fathers did not give captured British soldiers access to the civilian courts. They held them until the end of hostilities. Those that violated the laws of war were tried by military commission and punished accordingly.
He telegraphed the fact that his promises mean nothing when he reversed himself on FISA months before the general election. Anybody that still voted for him has only themselves to blame.
I gotta give him credit though, most politicians wait until they've won the election before they start backstabbing their supporters.
I guess the notion of them bringing a weapon on board that they would first retrieve from their ass before using never crossed your mind?
A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he would hold true to his word and try to restore a lot of what we had lost, shut down Gbay, etc
With respect, what did "we" (the people, presumably) lose with Gitmo? When has it ever been held that foreign nationals with no connection to our country other than the desire to destroy it whom aren't even captured on American soil have Constitutional Rights? The people who conspired to murder President Lincoln and decapitate the Federal Government were tried by military commission. German saboteurs that came ashore during WW2 were tried by military commission. Why should foreign terrorists be treated any differently?
I'm in full agreement with the President and his base on the issue of torture but I get off the bus when they start talking about extending Constitutional Rights to foreign terrorists and/or enemy combatants. If we ever get involved in another conventional war (i.e: nation-state vs. nation-state) should we also grant the POWs that we capture the right of habeas corpus and judicial review?
I figured as such. I was trying to preempt the inevitable "OMG GUNS ARE SCARY" knee-jerk response.
Mythbusters tried this and concluded that nothing exciting would happen. The plane would depressurize, O2 masks would deploy and the pilot would have to drop altitude. BFD
If you allowed those who have concealed carry permits to have their guns on the plane, there is slightly a higher probability that someone will bring one on and try to hijack the plane, but there is also a higher chance that if someone tries to hijack the plane the person in the seat behind them will reach over the seat and put a gun to their head.
I'd love to see CCW holders allowed to legally carry on airplanes. 9/11 would have ended differently if somebody on those planes had been armed. I doubt it will ever happen but I can dream.
If it doesn't happen you still don't need to go any further than metal and explosives detectors. Even a trained Special Forces operator isn't going to be able to defeat dozens of people before someone takes him down. It's absurd to attach all of this security to flying.
Don't lawyers usually get to go around the security checkpoint by flashing their bar card or some such? I recall reading something about that the last time some nutjob shot up a court house. He used a bar card to bypass security.
I guess it makes sense that the Government shouldn't be able to go through a lawyers papers (attorney client privilege and all that) but I can't understand why that translates into an exemption against going through the metal detector. It doesn't violate the attorney-client privilege to send an attorney and his briefcase through a metal detector.
What about the people who worry about both? Think of the child terrorists!