Do you believe the T.S.A. Is necessary?

[Mellow]

I'm just curious to know where the community stands in regards to [STRIKE]getting their junk touched[/STRIKE] national security.

 

[J_Wales]

I was going to say no, but decided to go with HELL NO! instead.

Disband the bastards.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Another intrusion into liberty, along with operant conditioning for future big government endeavors. And, I'm officially against them touching my junk.

Eliminate the rent-a-cop TSA thugs!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Since cockpits have been secured, there's really no sense in prohibiting knives or anything similar anymore. The big danger to aircraft seems to be explosives, which can be screened for without manhandling everyone. Non-invasive screening can be done by contractors instead of government employees, as it was before TSA.

 

[rcdouble2]

I will give that a double "HELL, HELL NO!"

 

[rockhopper46038]

No way.

 

[AuburnGuy]

Remove TSA and let people Carry while flying if they have a LTC. If someone does something stupid or tries to Hijack the plain then at least people can defend themselves.

 

[Panama]

Like others, HELL NO!

I used to fly occasionally, but now, I will only fly commercially if it is an absolute necessity to get to a destination in a short time frame. That is exactly how much I enjoy the TSA's ridiculous intrusions, like a ban on finger nail clippers, I mean really.

Otherwise I drive, it is much more enjoyable, not forced to sit next to some smelly fat dude or some chatty Cathy that never knows when to shut up, and the only "frisking" that takes place on my 95% of my journey's these days, happens at the hotel.

 

[Mellow]

Remove TSA and let people Carry while flying if they have a LTC. If someone does something stupid or tries to Hijack the plain then at least people can defend themselves.

I would be afraid to fire a weapon on a narrow, crowded plane flying at altitude. At most I would use my EDC as a small metal/polymer club.

 

[strahd71]

I would be afraid to fire a weapon on a narrow, crowded plane flying at altitude. At most I would use my EDC as a small metal/polymer club.

i see your pretty new here

but this is the internet where everyone is bad assed and a trained killa, and has all the answers........ truth has no place here my friend

jake

 

[mrjarrell]

I'd disband them, but then again, I'd get rid of the vast majority of government agencies.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I voted to eliminate the T&A...(wait thats what they grab)...I mean the TSA.

 

[buckstopshere]

I'm always in favor of eliminating totally stupid a*****es!

 

[Roadie]

Disband them, or Privatize them and let the airlines pay for their own security, and make their own decisions about security..

 

[Ted]

...... Privatize them and let the airlines pay for their own security, and make their own decisions about security..

That didn't work prior to 2001 either.

The only difference between then and now.....is that it cost a lot more today, that, and being violated.

 

[Roadie]

That didn't work prior to 2001 either.

The only difference between then and now.....is that it cost a lot more today, that, and being violated.

No. The difference now is that a Government Agency is being allowed to circumvent the 4th Amendment while working as security for private companies..

 

[backfire]

Since cockpits have been secured, there's really no sense in prohibiting knives or anything similar anymore. The big danger to aircraft seems to be explosives, which can be screened for without manhandling everyone. Non-invasive screening can be done by contractors instead of government employees, as it was before TSA.

I agree w/ the underlined.

I think some form of non-invasive, clearly defined protocol screening wouldn't be a bad thing for the overall security of air travel, IF the service provided had strict constitutional right guidelines to follow, they were contracted out from a private, US owned/operated company and the Gubment (read, Union Thugs) were kept entirely out of it!

A properly ran service like this does add an added layer of crime deterrant to would-be criminals and adds a higher level of security comfort for the law abiding passengers of the plane- BUT it must be performed properly with due respect given to those that fly by the rules and/or special situations that require commen sense to be enacted over non-flexible policy. Even an oak tree is somewhat flexible, but VERY strong when it needs to be...

In order for a security service like this to function properly and be respective to the law-abiding patrons, the entity doing it MUST be held 100% accountable for their inappropriate actions with clearly defined consequences to be readily enacted if someone crosses the line.


Unfortunetaly, with the corrupt Gubment and union thuggery involved/running it, it's bloated itself into a crooked beauracracy that has no accountability to anyone, nor does does it have to (or want to) adhere to the Constitutional Rights of every American or International law abiding citizen in any capacity what-so-ever. They've once again taken what could be an excellent service (under the proper checks/balances) to keep us safe when we fly and twisted it into something perverse that no one wants and everyone hates....

But then again...what the hell do I know.....

 

[Ted]

I would be afraid to fire a weapon on a narrow, crowded plane flying at altitude. At most I would use my EDC as a small metal/polymer club.

There are all kinds of shoot/don't shoot scenarios to be envisioned upon an aircraft, but altitude itself really isn't a consideration.

 

[mrjarrell]

That didn't work prior to 2001 either.

The only difference between then and now.....is that it cost a lot more today, that, and being violated.

It did work, prior to 2001. Security did NOT fail on 9/11. It worked EXACTLY the way it was supposed to. No-one got on a plane with a gun. No-one got on a plane with a bomb. Knives and box cutters were ALLOWED, and many of us routinely carried one or the other on us while flying. To say security didn't work is to buy into media falsehoods. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[Ted]

No. The difference now is that a Government Agency is being allowed to circumvent the 4th Amendment while working as security for private companies..

Governmental agencies have long been providing security, in full or in part, to a number of private concerns apart from air travel.