TexasCHLforum.com

We've already been told that:

1. The new machines are being put in place to detect bombing attempts like the one in the Christmas underwear bomber case.
2. The new machines wouldn't have been able to detect a bomb concealed as it was in that case.

Here's more reason to ask why the TSA is so hot on rapidly deploying a new, intrusive, extremely unpopular and easily defeated screening method at huge expense during a time when cutting unnecessary spending is desperately needed.

gemini wrote:quote Chartreuse "As Dr Jerry Pournelle is wont to say, the purpose of the TSA is to convince the American people that they are subjects, not citizens."

I flew into DFW this evening from SFO. The above sentiment was very apparent at SFO. I was amazed at how all the subjects were required to
humble themselves before the pimply faced TSA workers or face petty punishments. I found the TSA workers attitude to be rude, obnoxious, and condescending as a whole. Folks, it's just going to get worse. With the current mind set of TSA and Homeland Security, I see a logical progression
of totally nude passengers boarding planes. We've gone from showing ID's, to bag inspections, to baggage being x-rayed, to partially disrobing, to either full body radioactive scans or complete physical pat downs...... yea, it's scary stuff for sure....... I'm scared of my own government.

If you're alarmed, complain loud and long to your congressman and senators - while you still have a congressman and senators.

All of these measures are conceived and implemented by the executive branch, which is out of control and virtually unaccountable to the American people. The only practical way to stop them is for congress to prohibit spending money on them.

chartreuse wrote:Now coming to a WalMart near you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40552073/ns ... -security/

Some pretty thoughtful folks who have noted the absence of national security incidents at WalMarts are questioning whether this latest move is tied to the new TSA search procedures (one can't ignore that it comes from the same source and follows in a very short time frame) and whether or not it has more to do with social conditioning than it does with safety.

I really like my local WalMart, but, regardless of what purpose announcements like the ones described in the article are really designed to accomplish, they would unquestionably severely annoy and offend me, just like the mini TV ads that blare from some gas pumps. Seeing and hearing Janet Napolitano urging everyone to look out for terrorists behind the vegetables and in the parking lot every time I shop would seriously interfere with successful digestion of my food. If these announcements come to my local store I would consider joining the folks who advocate bringing their carts with everything they'd picked up before the announcement was made to the manager and explain to him why they are abandoning that merchandise and taking that business to his competitors who provide a more customer friendly environment.

Our government representatives may be intent on ignoring the voters while they race forward with their radical agenda to transform America, but I suspect WalMart will do a better job of listening when its customers speak with their wallets.

jordanmills wrote:So have any of you actually written your congresspersons about this?

Yes - congressman and both senators.

Bullwhip wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Justice Black's observation in the Reid v Covert supreme court case would seem to have application here:

"Justice Black declared: “The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government”.

This is as true today as the day it was written.

And today is a good time to remind our "representatives" of it.

You must support the terrists.

Actually I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and don't buy our rulers' (ahem, "leaders") line that "we need to abolish your rights so we can keep you safe."

As a student of history, I've seen where that's gone every time it's been used.

Ben Franklin had it right when he observed that those who would give up an essential liberty for the promise of safety deserved neither liberty nor safety.

Justice Black's observation in the Reid v Covert supreme court case would seem to have application here:

"Justice Black declared: “The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government”.

This is as true today as the day it was written.

And today is a good time to remind our "representatives" of it.

jimlongley wrote:The problem being that the screeners are NOT using any understanding of the law, they are essentially forced to do what they do, the way they do it, by layers of management that interpret the law and dictate their performance for them.

I agree with Jim here.

My disgust with what's going on is focused on the people who put this monstrosity in place and refuse to change it. This would include the heads of Homeland Security and the TSA, and by extension, President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the executive branch of our government, excuses notwithstanding.

The TSA agent at the checkpoint is not responsible for the selection of screening machines or for creating the policies around the use of those machines and the "enhanced patdown" procedures. Very few of those folks are in a position where they could take care of their families if they didn't have the salary and benefits from their work. Jim has accurately pointed out that in many cases the TSA has been an employer of last resort for people who have lost jobs and couldn't replace them with another in private industry due to the stagnation of our economy for the past couple of years.

In any group of employees as large as the TSA, it is a certainty that a small subset will misuse their authority, engage in bullying or demeaning practices just because they can, or derive personal satisfaction from things they see or from causing discomfort to others. It's also a fact of life that this is more common in unarmed security positions with relatively low qualification requirements than it is in law enforcement work with much more stringent standards. Yet even with those higher standards, some misconduct and abuses still occur.

On the other hand, it's equally true that the vast majority of these good folks are doing their dead level best to meet the requirements of their jobs and to do it as gently and smoothly as they can with maximum consideration for their fellow citizens. They deserve our personal respect while those of us who feel things have gone too far work vigorously to change what they have been ordered to do.

The former head of security for Israeli airline El Al tells it like it is in this video.

The current TSA procedures are totally outside of constitutional and reasonable bounds. From a security standpoint they are also known to be ineffective against current jihadist bomb smuggling methods, as well as newer methods intelligence agencies have reported as in the works. The fact that these procedures are being pushed as critically essential by the Obama administration despite the intense public outcry leaves only two possible conclusions that I can come up with:

1. The Homeland Security leadership Obama has selected to protect this country have taken world class incompetence and stupidity to previously unscaled heights.

2. The real reason behind implementing these methods has nothing to do with air transport security, but it's a really important part of the "transformation" Obama has vowed to bring about in our nation.

In either case, unless Congress acts to defund this abomination, the solution lies in the voting booth in 2012.

Stevie_D_64:

Stevie:

I like your ideas on:

- zip tying the gun (I usually field strip, but this is still a great idea - especially with a high visibility color of zip tie)
- using a plastic reloader's box (when I use this method I put a rubber band around it to make sure it doesn't lose its top)
- keeping the last flight's tag inside your gun case to silently clue in the ticket agent that you know what you're doing and have been approved before. I'm going to adopt this one.

It's also a good idea to keep a copy of the rules for flying with firearms and ammo from the web site of the company you're flying with to save some time if a ticket agent unfamiliar with the details starts to go off on a tangent (it happens.)

Many airlines do limit the amount of ammo you can carry, but it's in the hundreds of rounds. I don't get concerned about the limit because I usually travel with just a personal defense quantity of a box or two and pick up anything else I might need locally at my destination.