You mean a privately owned plane in a quasi-public airport where the screening is conducted by officials who are not employees of that airline or the airport at a time when air travel is already on the decline. That means that despite the industry being in trouble, the government is making it harder to fly. And really? Must I be forced back into the stone age by taking a prohibitively less convenient mode of transportation as the only alternative to participating in an Orwellian experiment? Yet cargo (again) is our weakest link. They can X-ray inanimate objects all they like but they don't; instead they electronically strip search us. Come on with that. People depend on air travel and most dangerous things that get onto a plane are in luggage or cardboard boxes.
So question: if they had a way to require you to go through a bio-metric scan every time you got behind the wheel, would your argument be that people should
walk? Really? So instead of taking that energy and fighting for our rights, you expect us to just give it away to the government instead just because
you choose too? Sounds pretty selfish to me. Don't even get me started on the 5th Amendment implications possible if law enforcement ever points to airline security as a precedent to determine what is a reasonable search. Pretty soon they'll be able to strip search anyone they like.
If I had to go on a bio-metric scan to drive? Seriously... why? Is someone trying to use my car as a weapon and fly it into the side of a building? Is a passenger going to jump into my car with C-4 in their underwear? Im beginning to think you border insanity.
By the way... are you talking about the 4th Amendmant? The 5th has to do with self-incrimation.
Do you also like Obamacare? TARP? Do you drive a 'Government Motors' automobile?
I think Obama is a socialist-muslim-liar and currently our worst president to date. TARP sucks and people like Barney Frank helped cause the whole melt down. My tax money went to bail out people who took out irresponsible loans. What about my house?
I'm sorry, this may come off as personal, but I find it disgusting that anybody would submit themselves to that level or scrutiny just to lower the odds of being injured when those odds are already at 1:500,000. You have a greater chance of having an autistic child (1:150), and really, how many of those do you know well?
Wow... you are crazy. I was speaking if a proecdure lessened my chance of dying I'd do it. What on Gods green earth does me knowing a kid with Autism have to do with airline security? By the way, one of my co-workers son's has severe autism, to the point where he's been institutionalized. We have an annual fundraiser at work....
That's exactly my point! What do full body scans have to do with lowering the chances that someone will bring a non-metallic agent that can't fit into a body cavity onto a plane when, again, if it reaches the security line it's already too late? Makes no sense, does it?
If it reaches the security line.. it's too late? Really? If they catch them in line... they dont get to blow up the plane do they????? DO THEY?
So again I ask, because people are blowing themselves up making meth, should we ban cigarette lighters? Of course not. Your argument that my argument is ridiculous... is ridiculous.
HEY NUT JOB.... CIGARETTE LIGHTERS ARE BANNED ON PLANES
Oh, you mean the arbitrary speed limits that dull our driving skills? There are no speed limits in most of Europe and far fewer highway fatalities. Do you know why? Because personal responsibility makes Europeans better drivers overall. And alcohol? OMG! The effects of alcohol vary by the person. I know plenty of people who could run a Gran Prix at .08 and plenty who couldn't ride a bike at .02. I mean you're talking to a girl who comes from the only state in the country that doesn't require auto insurance. I don't agree with it, but I took advantage on occasion when I was living there. Do you think that state's roads have descended into chaos? Of course not. Extra points if you can name the state.
Oh yes.. that old chestnut.. "I drive better drunk"...HAHAHA
Personal responsibility makes European better? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In France in 2004, it was estimated that because of the cost of driving, there were 800,000 unlicensed drivers... just in FRANCE...HAHAHHA
There are speed limits in Europe Einstein.. they are just higher than here. And lets talk about the cameras on the highways in Europe that take pictures of your car when speeding and mail you a ticket... IS THAT VIOLATING YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
You want to talk Drinking and driving in Europe?
Sweden, for example, considers a BAC of .02 as a DUI, and in Italy the state can sell your vehicle if you get a DUI. Most countries use a graduated BAC as punishment... the higher the BAC, the worse the punishment.
Here in the US, you get your wrist slapped.
Furthermore, how come people are not supposed to discriminate against other people based on their experiences, but the government can discriminate against
every person based on nothing other than arguable statistics. I mean, hell, if you want to go there, what's Constitutional about our drug policy? Not a
DAMN thing.
I have no idea what this sentence means. Discriminate against people based on experiences? HUH? Drug policies? I think you are on drugs!
That's irrelevant. They're against the scanners for
everyone, not just pilots.
It was accepted practice at the time that we all now know is wrong. Full body scanners are accepted by many people too... see where I'm going with this? The Founders did not have the political clout to shake up the status quo enough to provide everyone with the same freedoms in their time, hence their foresight dictated that the Constitution be a sort of wish list. Even though everyone didn't have equal rights back then, they worded the Bill of Rights in such a way that eventually they would have to, and in fact we did extend those rights to everyone.
You made a statement saying what the founding fathers would say about scanners violating rights... well... Im going by our founding fathers believes at that day... SLAVES WERE THE WAY. THATS WHAT THEY BELIEVED. You cant pick and chose... well they were right this way.. because it would prove what you are saying but not right in other respects.
The Founding Fathers didnt have the polictical clout to provide everyone with the same freedoms? They were the ONLY POLICITICAN. If they didnt have slaves themselves your statement would carry a little more credit.
'Hypocritical?' Try 'idealistic.'
Are you kidding? These were guys who pranced around in powdered wigs, makeup, and ruffles, sometimes even on the battlefield. Again, please spare me the historical relativism. If you have such a problem with how much things have changed since the beginning of our nation, please do try your hand at re-writing the Constitution.
And the most ironic name of a corporation in the history of history is... :lol:
~BB~
