Posted on 02/27/2005 7:13:06 AM PST by TheBlackFeather
He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID
SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghpostgazette.com ...
They viewed you as an anti American disassembler, no doubt. < /sarcasm >
There is no foolproof way to create an I.D. that is perfect, multiple forms of attestaion to the genuine nature of the person or object will always serve better.
Read your own posts and tell me if you are on topic or are just taking potshots.
"If a building inspector told you a structure you built in you back yard was to close to a property line, would you ask to see a copy of the ordinance?"
Some do that.....with a snippy attitude too....then they find out just how many ordinances there really are and how really really difficult it can be to comply. LOL
Ya could, but I wouldn't advise it. It sounds really, really stupid.
Maybe you should realize and remember that safety is a feeling and not an absolute. And all of this stupid security stuff may make you feel safe, but it doesn't really make you safe. And when you have a false sense of security like that is when you are most vulnerable to harm.
Yep, didn't old Ben mean to say...
"Give me a safely regulated society or give me death!"
"This country was founded on individual rights, not collective rights."
"Provide for the "common defense". Sounds like more than one to me.
"when, with defiance aforethought"
So he went LOOKING for trouble.
It's pretty intelligent to ask for the law to be cited publically. Our Constitution, the BOR are in black and white. So should any law applying to US citizens.
I have my own plane.
My nephew is my pilot.
You may not get it, CJ, but I support everyone's rights, even those who would toss their's away. I'm not arguing for myself, I don't have to play the stripsearch the sheep at the airport game.
After all these years, we've probably never agreed on anything, but I take you for an honest opponent, unlike some here.
then they find out just how many ordinances there really are and how really really difficult it can be to comply.
There it is. Thats why Smartaleck is always spouting the statist line - He's in the statist business. LOL youself mr inspector man
Is it? There are many options for obtaining food, as well.
"Besides, this entire thread is the same old crap we see on FR on a regular basis: a clown decides he doesn't want to obey a regulation established by a private business, and the luddites side with the clown."
The regulation wasn't established by a private business. It is a regulation from the government, using a private business as it's agent. Re-read the article.
Let's analyze this remark.
If the "public" owns the airlines, then yes it would be a right.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
But since the airlines are not owned by the "public,"v you are correct, "flying is not a right."
But where in the constitution does our government get the jurisdiction or the power to order a private property owner from denying a fellow citizen from being invited on or in their property with or without a weapon? Or to search them, by a government employee, with out a warrant or probable cause?
Some would say the power emeanates from the "commerce clause."
Well that is interesting because the commerce clause states "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
When and how did an airline become a "foreign nation(s); a "several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"
The Bill of Rights was intended and is meant to "limit" government from denying and disparaging rights.
The airlines, being private property owners and their passengers can exert their rights protected by Amendment II, IV, V, and IX.
The airlines are free to allow or disallow anyone they wish to, for any reason, at any time, from being invited onto their private property.
Your government is not.
Twenty years ago I briefly worked as a bouncer and I could pick out the potential trouble makers better than our TSA can pick out potential terrorists and the bar I worked at had 99% white American customers. I didn't have the benefit of skin color, accent or ethnicity as a clue.
BTW, the trouble was never with the 1% non white customer. It was always those white guys who all looked alike, but I knew enough about people to see who was gonna be trouble and who wasn't.
People skills and common sense would go a long way with airline screening, but those seem to be the two things that aren't required.
...Have you considered suicide?
May I suggest it?...
I don't know how.
Why don't you show me?
By not showing his I.D. on demand he assumed he would be forced to do so or be denied service, a time-honored practice of challenge to the law.
At no time have I said this man has used a good strategy for change nor have I said that I would do the same if the idea had occurred to me, but I do say that no law should be secret in any of its forms while the then obvious pretense upon discovery would be that freedom is not really free and the "dom" in freedom is just an abbreviation for dominion.
People have gone to prison for asking that very question.
Well, that came out of Left Field.
Well, it's different now. The Republicans are in power, and will be for the rest of eternity. You see?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.