It isn't often I can give a Freeper or anybody else just what he wants , so on this Thanksgiving day, enjoy.
Posted on 11/25/2010 4:49:41 AM PST by Juan Medén
I think you are right. the front sight is a tad..boxy.
I was just seeing what I wanted to see.
Do I have a right to fly on your airplane but only on my terms?
The problem with THAT is I don’t think a particular airline can opt out of the TSA screen.
It’s complicated. Do our laws envision a right to operate a paasenger airline, or must one get a license?
It isn't often I can give a Freeper or anybody else just what he wants , so on this Thanksgiving day, enjoy.
How about passengers who bought non-refundable tickets before these new “security procedures” were implemented, or passengers flying overseas to destinations not served by any ocean-going ships? (I realize you’re putting forward an argument on behalf of the TSA, in the voice of a lawyer for the TSA, and not your own argument, but those are the objections to that.)
It is a violation of your 4th amendment rights, among other things. You’ll notice in the videos on the web, that the TSA thugs are quite admadant in getting the people’s permission to perform the search. If you waive your rights, they are gone. Stand your ground, and they lose their power.
Yeah, work with me here ...
I’m the airline and I say, “D00d! You didn’t read the fine print. We get to change the terms without notice.” Then we can go to tort court to see if that was a reasonable change of the contract.
(What irritates me is the part where you can’t just decline and go your irritated way. Once you’re in line you belong to them, evidently.)
No problem Dupin. I did not spend much time in researching the cases I posted. I was just looking for a lucid explanation of an administrative search.
Yes, Model 28 I think.
“It’s complicated.”
Things went well for many years, them the politicians and leftists hand in hand realized that they could take control over our lives by saving our lives.
Your airplane on your terms, acceptable, your plane Uncle’s terms, unacceptable.
Just spit-balling here. I am only arguing for this junk to educate myself about what must be the better arguments against it.
Leave aside all the legal arguments above. Let’s play what if.
(I) You’re an airline flying between states (or even within a state). You talk your insurance company into insuring you even though you refuse to require your passengers be patted down or irradiated. You talk the feds into giving you permission to let your passengers around the fonky security system. So a bad guy gets into your plane and blows it up.
How do you think you will fare in civil court? Are you exercising moral fiduciary interest for your debt-holders and shareholders? Do you think you can fend off an argument that the refusal to use all the services the feds were offering indicated a lack of due diligence?
(II) Shall we support unlicensed inter-state or international commercial air travel? Would we support unlicensed commercial traffic on interstate waterways?
So I think the argument ends up not in broad principles but in finely sliced arguments over what is reasonable. Yes, Down the road one might have to be irradiated or groped to get on a Greyhound bus. But I’m not sure that until that happens the feds can’t argue that the unique ability of a highjacked airplane to cause damage might, MIGHT, make different standards applicable.
I hate this mess! Asymmetric warfare with scoundrels is so damaging to freedom that there is a very good reason that we should not feel bound by the Geneva and other accords. Our enemy knows he is piling war crime on war crime and doesn’t care. It is such a clash of standards and so fundamentally uncivilized that our enemy really ought not to be seen as having any civil rights at all.
I think a large part of the resentment over this intolerable situation is that we do not see a determined prosecution of this war against our enemies. It is as though our “leaders” are saying that a few thousand for tribute isn’t really all that bad compared to millions for defense.
And the iron law of history is that paying tribute does not stop. Our enemy means to conquer the world and to destroy the kaffir. We do not slow him up by irradiating and groping ourselves.
“You talk the feds into giving you permission to let your passengers around the fonky security system. So a bad guy gets into your plane and blows it up.”
It’s apples and oranges to me if you compare a companies choice based on financial considerations and having the Feds requiring the same. One you are making a choice the other your are being forced. If the company requires something then you have a chance a redress in court if they keep your images. With the Feds they always seem to be exempt for their wrongdoing. As an extreme example Ron Horiuchi was given an unlawful order and executed it and was never tried, even though a Federal Judge questioned this, while those at Nuremburg were executed for following unlawful orders. In many ways we are less free than Germans under the Nazis. We live under the illusion of freedom.
If you accept their terms and are fully informed of their security procedures then you should loose in court. You are making an informed decision.
What purpose does licensing serve? It mainly acts to limit competition as the licensing agencies are usually staffed by your competition. Try opening a funeral home and cutting prices. You will be out of business so fast the ink won’t dry on your application. Quality and price are quite good ways to control businesses. Licensing only protects the less competent. Common carriers have always based safety on the bottom line, is it cheaper to pay families for a death or keep the planes in good shape. This mode of operation is based on the idea that the FAA will side with the airline and not the family...ergo let the courts sort things out not the Feds it’s much better for the public. Regulations always side with the big guy. It is a protection racket.
In asymmetric warfare or any kind our response to France is still best. “Not a sixpence.” We must never try to buy off any aggressor with tribute.
We must maintain full Constitutional protections for our Citizens. History will not care and will not judge us poorly if we treat the aggressors with less care. If we don’t we will be only a footnote in history.
They used to do that at ATL years ago, IOW, matching the claim ticket to the bag when you exited the baggage claim area, but I've not experienced that in quite a while.
'Course, if killing people is their main concern they could bomb a crowded shopping mall(s) during the Christmas season. Another thing I'd never thought about but was brought to my attention by a guy I know who works on a barge crew pushing barges up and down the TN river. A lot of riverfront cities have remodeled their river fronts and have big music festivals in the summertime. Chattanooga is a prime example with their "Riverbend" festival in June. The high draw nights will compact 130,000 people into a fairly small area around the bigger stages. The river is close by. Someone cruising up river could lob RPG's into the crowd and the stampede would kill 10,000 people.
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.