Posted on 08/26/2003 4:52:07 AM PDT by NittanyLion
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Quite often this is the case with most federal agencies. Even worse, they're screwing around with our safety, not just a few petty regulations concerning our lawns, or our mail delivery.
I enjoy this comment. I suppose if a pilot isn't capable of flying after killing the TSA prefers that the flight be overtaken by terrorists.
Notice AP's obvious bias. The title of this article should be: "TSA drags feet on public safety" or "Mineta obstructs congressional mandate to secure planes".
Talk about obvious left wing bias!
We've got billions for nonsense programs (including giving it to other countries), but we have to slow-roll a program like this.
Ironically, all pilots of aircraft carrying mail used to be required to be armed. No training. No national agency oversight with volumes of regulation.
Care to guess how that came to an end? Executive Order. Single signature.
George Bush could fix this by the end of the week. I'm not holding my breath.
Nice catch. I thought about changing it myself but I know the Admins frown on that here.
I propose reciprocal psychological testing of Turmail and TSA employees. Hell's bells, I'd settle for logical testing of them. That alone would do wonders in trimming the fat.
Carter. Lest we puff out our chests over that, he showed more leadership (wrong-headed as it was) it doing that than Bush has in correcting the problem.
Would much prefer funds to be spent on screening baggage.
If our government had not unconstitutionally prohibited a private airline company from making it's own decision whether to invite their customers to be armed while being transported on their aircraft, 3,000 U.S. citizens never would have died on September 11, 2001 at the hands of plastic knife wielding hijackers.
Of course, armed pilots or for that matter, armed passengers would be a deterrent to a hijacker.
Do you think the Muslim terrorists would have even tried to hatch a plan to hijack commercial airliners for the purposes of terrorism if they knew that on a regular basis there would be 10, 30, 60, maybe 100 passengers armed on any one flight?
Of course not.
With the threat of terrorism on our soil, we should be advocating the expansion and exertion of our Second Amendment rights, not abdicating to the exclusion of that right.
Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
Very true, but certainly a terrorist needs to know the odds are greater than 1 in 200 that such an encounter will occur.
I would too, but if that door is breached there will be no choice in the matter. And the door will need to be opened on occasion for bathroom breaks, meals, etc.
Personally, (for what that's worth) I doubt we'll see terrorists hijacking planes for a while. They realize that A)They are unlikely to get into the cockpit to gain control of the plane, and B)They are likely to receive the mother of all ass-whuppin's should they try to pull that "I've got a knife/bomb/sharp stick" crap. I, for one, would rather take my chances throwing a full body check on Achmed than let him take over a plane with the mere threat of an explosive or knife.
A much bigger threat is the fact that very few of the thousands upon thousands of containers arriving in our ports are even ever checked...or the fact that any Mexican with a good pair of tire-soled sandals and a canteen of water can make his way to San Diego, Phoenix, or El Paso without ever encountering a U.S. Law Enforcement Officer...or the fact that we STILL INSIST on letting male Arabs between the ages of 15-50 into our country.
These things concern me, not the unlikely takeover of a commercial jet.
He could have done that on September 12, 2001 and I'm not holding mine either.
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.