TexasCHLforum.com

i8godzilla wrote:TSA's new motto:
"We handle more packages than UPS."

The way I heard it ,"We handle more 'junk' than E-bay!"

"You don't get on, until we get off."

chasfm11 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:One of Jim's posts summarized this best: he was able to get a firearm past security the majority of the time in his testing while normal TSA actions continuously "disarm" little old ladies by taking their fingernail clippers.

I don't know if things have changed since I left, but we had stopped the nail clipper thing in 2004, it was obviously carrying things too far. When I traveled constantly for a year after I left TSA, my nail clippers were never questioned, nor were they this past year when my wife and I flew to Hawai'i.

They even let my wife's knitting and crochet needles through and one of them was the size of the folding bayonette on the old SKS.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ppers.html

Sorry, the anecdote seems a little apocryphal, TSA is not empowered to confiscate.

Bart wrote:"You don't get on, until we get off."

To all: please keep the innuendos to a discreet minimum.

Refer to the Forum Rules if in doubt.

Bikini and soon speedo are getting fashionable while travelling:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/201 ... check.wabc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i8godzilla wrote:TSA's new motto:

"We handle more packages than UPS."

How about, TSA - making travel a touching experience.

Do screeners change gloves between each pat down? Grossness (fluids) from passenger one, get wiped onto passenger two.

The gloves are there for THEIR protection, not YOURS!

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.

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.

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.

Governmental actions that allow the Constitution to be "inoperant" are the same actions that might eventually make the USA a future province of the UN.

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.

In parts of England there's a superstition that you shouldn't turn your soft boiled egg upside down, after eating it, because it'll cause a sailor to fall out of his lifeboat. Similarly, I've read that in parts of the Far East, there's a superstition that you shouldn't turn a fish over, after eating what's on one side of the bones, because it'll cause a fisherman to fall out of his fishing boat.

Clearly, these are serious threats to maritime security. And what is the TSA doing about them? Nothing!

When TSA irradiates or touches your private parts, the terrorists win.