Replies

The airlines are being driven into bankruptcy because this federally mandated security is driving away most of their business. The security won't stop another terror attack; it merely makes using airliners for an attack a little more difficult. Now you KNOW that nothing could stop the guy who snaps because his wife leaves him--except determined passengers who aren't going to let a froot loop take their lives. Security that won't out-and-out STOP an organized terror cell with a good plan is just plain worthless. The best security we have is the determination of a free people not to be flown into buildings again. The government saps that determination rather than building it when they deem us too irresponsible to take knitting needles on PRIVATE property. (If the airlines don't want knitting needles, that's their call, as part of the competitive world of businessmaking decisions.)

The airlines are going to have to push back at the government sooner or later, or be driven out of business. Too many people who don't need to fly are refusing to fly, and too many people who do need to fly are cutting back. If we want to have commercial airlines (and I think our economy demands commercial airlines)--then we must stop this groping of women and harassment of high-strung but gallant men.

Read the article. The guy may be kinda stupid and taken in by the socialists in many ways, but can you doubt that if anyone tried to highjack the plane his pregnant wife was on, he'd be joining the line to whack the highjacker?

I see only a couple of sheep on this thread who would sit down and let a highjacker cut their throats without fighting back. Most of us would lay down our lives to prevent another 9/11.

The security won't stop another terror attack; it merely makes using airliners for an attack a little more difficult.

So any measure that isn't perfectly effective should be discarded? What perfect security methods do you propose?

The best security we have is the determination of a free people not to be flown into buildings again.

Why is it wrong to try to protect people from having to make that choice? If the fit hits the shan, I'll be right there alongside you, fighting to take back control of the plane. If that means we go down rather than hitting a building full of innocents, so be it. However, I'd really prefer not to have to make that sort of sacrifice in the first place. In exchange for a reduced possibility that I will be inconvenienced when my plane slams into the ground at 300 mph, I accept the somewhat smaller inconvenience of consenting to a search before boarding. Others may prefer not to be inconvenienced at all - for them, there is Greyhound.