TMF

While it may be marginal, there are LOTS of people who drive instead of flying due to the TSA hassle. I know, I'm one of them. I fly all the time for work, which I don't mind too much because I gotta do it, but I have had several occasions where I drove where I would have otherwise flown. Part of that is due to the inability to predict the checkpoint coming in. I thought I had it down to a science at BNA, but I was wrong. So I generally show up 2 hours early to my flight, because I have stood in line down there for at least an hour before. This is on top of the 1 hour drive to get to the airport in the first place. So I've already wasted 3 hours of my time before even getting wheels up. Then with connecting flights and all it usually adds another 2 or 3. So if the drive is 8 hours, I skip the flight and just drive because I can do it at my own convenience in as much time. This isn't revolutionary reasoning. Lots of people do it. I've done it twice so far this year. The fact that there are plenty of full airplanes doesn't mean that there isn't an additional 5-10 percent that would otherwise prefer to fly. And I realize that taking off your belt and shoes isn't a big deal in the grand scheme, but that's not the point. The bad guys have changed our way of life and we've allowed it to happen. I am not cool with that. There are better ways to address the problem.

I'm assuming her honor was all she had. When a person has nothing to lose I'm guessing laws and consequences aren't making their way into the decision matrix.

And once again I'll pose this question, is it illegal to strap road flares to my chest and walk around? Is it illegal to walk down the street with a broadsword? Is it illegal to walk down the street in a full nude colored body suit? Is it illegal to walk through a park and approach kids with offers of free candy? I would say that all the things above are legal, but will attract attention of law enforcement and potentially get you detained. The law is not the problem. The police are not the problem. The problem is one useless turd making an issue where no issue exists.

The law is not the issue here.

Well I will give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to deterrence factor. The enemy has had to adapt their plans significantly to get around the TSA. However, they don't seem to be able to stay inside the enemy's decision cycle, as each kneejerk policy they've come up with is a result of their weakness being exploited: We have to take our shoes off because someone got explosives on a plane in the sole of their shoe; we can't take liquids through security because of the narrowly foiled plot out of GB; we have body scanners because of the underwear bomber. So, the TSA didn't really stop any of these folks. The best security we've had against terrorist attacks since 9/11 is the fact that the enemy is incredibly incompetent. So, while the TSA serves as a deterrent, it is not effective in stopping the enemy. The solve to this would be putting greater numbers of Air Marshals on flights and simply going back to the pre-9/11 security measures in the terminal.

I played that scenario in my head when I heard about this case. Having kids changes your perspective on how you will react to situations, since it isn't as easy as just saving yourself if someone goes off the deep end and decides to start capping people. However, I figure in an open park I would have seen him in time to get my kids to a safe place and call police before he would be in danger distance. But, then I think about if I was in a scenario where I was cornered, and some guy comes walking in to a restaurant with an AK strapped to his chest wearing tactical gear. What would I do? Well, simply because this a-hole exists I now have to consider that maybe it's just somebody being an a-hole, but what if I was not aware? What reason would I have to think the guy is there to do anything else but shoot the place up, since there is no practical reason to be doing what he is doing. Once again, with kids it isn't as easy as getting to cover an calling police. Add to that the obligation to protect your family over yourself. I don't see myself doing anything but drawing down on the guy and holding him for the cops, which would turn real bad for a Voldemort character if he does anything other than put his hands up. Just some thoughts. I'm sure he has considered this too which is why he has been careful to pick and choose where he makes his stands at, but if he has a brain fart he's gonna end up getting shot in the face.

I think the airline industry does suffer to a decent extent on lost passengers. I don't have the option of choosing not to fly, but for regular travel I will always drive if possible. It isn't so much that I'm making a statement about the TSA, but more about convenience. I recently made a 5 hour trip by rental because it was still quicker than flying and with less hassle. That shouldn't be the case but that's the way it is. I don't think I'm alone in that way of thinking, and I believe that there is a significant enough percentage that the airlines are missing out on from folks that just don't want to put up with it, even at discounted prices. Just throwing a number out there based on my own knowledge, but I would put it between 5-10 percent loss of passengers. That equates to a lot of jobs. Maybe the TSA could fill those jobs if we disbanded their silly organization.

There is now a limitless supply of people willing to suicide themselves to create mass casualties by using a plane as a guided missile. Pretty effective too when you consider 9/11. I don't think that one event justifies the TSA though. There are plenty of passive measures that have been taken to answer the mail on our security weaknesses. More Air Marshals would essentially end the need for any security screening at all (in my opinion). It would be cheaper to have an Air Marshal on every single US flight than have the TSA. What is more secure than the knowledge that there is an armed guard on the plane, but you don't know who it is? Beyond that, pilots have better training now that they know the enemy's most dangerous course of action, and cockpit doors are unbreachable. Sure, someone could sneak a knife on a plane and stab some folks, but I can get on a bus or train and do the same thing. If there is no access to the cockpit what is the difference? Just silly, kneejerk reaction to fear is what birthed the TSA, and now there is no way to get rid of it, ever.

Okay, I'm going to strap a bunch of road flares to m chest and walk into a bank. Then I'll cry that my "rights" we're violated when I get detained. If someone could please find me a law which states that I can't do that I would appreciate it, because as far as I can tell it is my "right" to do so. Give me a damn break! The cops did a good job. I don't care if what he did was legal or not. He was trying to incite panic. It might be classified as a pistol, but it is a damn AK. I can't think of a good reason why someone would be carrying that around unless they were at a range or in a combat zone. And saying that my logic is the same argument against handgun carry is just silly. There are many good reasons I can assume someone is carrying a pistol. I can't think of a good reason why someone would be carrying around an AK. That would make me think they were up to no good. Would you honestly not raise an eyebrow if someone came into a restaurant with an AK slung to their chest?? Would you look at the barrel length and say "oh, it's only 10 inches so all is well"??? I would immediately assume he is there to shoot up the place, because I can think of no practical reason why someone would do that. Mind you, I am not scared of folks carting firearms. I have been frequently surrounded by third world former al Qaeda infidel haters who were armed with a lot more than a Draco. The point here is context.

Yup.

The TSA let him on the flight. He was subdued by passengers after trying to light his shoe on fire. Apparently he missed that day of jihad camp because you can't detonate C4 that way... you can just severely burn yourself, which is why it is a shame he was beaten down before he had a chance to light it.

Well, it is much different world than it was in 1968. The reality is that we must take some measures to mitigate the risk of hijacking. I think we have just gone too far is all. Firearms on plane may not be the solution, and that is not to suggest it wouldn't keep people honest, but it is a safety issue the same as other items that may not be a threat in terms of intent, but more of negligence thing... like there is a reason you can't bring your weed whacker full of gas on a flight. I don't think we're doing it the right way now, but we should recognize that we do have to address the security concerns.

Returning to the US through a foreign airport is probably the worst. Last time I flew back to the US I counted 7 checkpoints I had to go through before I was in Nashville. I'm all for safety, but that needs to be balanced with reason. The current system is unreasonable. The root of the problem is that the TSA is a gov entity. If it was privatized by airports it would fix 85% of the inefficiency issue.

I'm not a pants wetting liberal that is scared of guns, but if I see someone walking around with an AK strapped to their chest in a public park I'm calling the cops. That simple.

With the Post-9/11 GI Bill this would be the best best best thing for a single Servicemember to do upon separation. He would get paid to go to school. He won't be rich, but he'll be better off than 90% of other college students and he'll already know a thing or two about life, which will come in handy for his studies and for relations with the chickipoos.

I don't think she was concerned about it at the time, and based on her statement she still doesn't seem to care. I think she is just pleased that she accomplished her goal.

I dunno, I just don't see it affecting their margins enough to care.... at least not enough to stick their necks out about it and risk the potential fall out related to being on the wrong side of the issue (according to liberal media). Besides, there are plenty of religious groups keeping up that fight. Unless, of course, folks are right about society indoctrinating our children to be gay, then the entire next generation will be gay and will make up the majority of couples wanting benefits. That presupposes that folks would have to choose to ignore primal instincts which tell them that Robin Meade is hot and voluntarily take a penis up their rectum, but I guess it's possible in bizarro world. I honestly didn't know what "gay" was when I was 11, but that was the age that I saw my first Playboy and I knew exactly what I wanted to do. Can't say I would have had those same thoughts if it was a grown man's ass.

No, I hate change just as much as the next guy. I wish I could turn on the radio and not hate everything I hear or go to the store without seeing every chick dressed like she's working the corner, or actually hear folks say "please" and "thank you". Yes, I generally hate change because I'm not into it and it makes me feel old. What I "like" is freedom... for all, even if it is inconvenient for me. I want freedom for you as well as freedom from you. Everyone is entitled to no more or less.

So what? That argument is the embodiment of "wet monkey theory".

Blah blah blah... How does the pointing out of someone's inability to grasp the natural evolution of traditions and societal norms suddenly put me in a category if endorsing Obama? Because I used the word "change"? Is that an off limits word worthy of eliciting a response regarding a presidential campaign from four years ago? God help me if I ever use the word "forward" in a sentence. Geez.

It's called change. It has been going on since the beginning of time and will go on long after you and I are dust.

BAHAHAHAHA!!!

I read his page. He is a nutjob. I also live in a world where suggesting taking up arms against the government doesn't automatically make you some kind of patriot hero to be compared to our forefathers. Timothy Macveigh also spoke about taking up arms against the government. He was not a patriot and neither is this guy. He is just nuts.

Plenty of states have taken an active role in defining marriage as between a man and a woman to head off future attempts to legally legitimize marriage. I look to that as legislation against it. The rest are all fair points that illustrate the reason (in my opinion) why we haven't seen widespread acceptance of same sex marriage by state governments. I think the "in your face" campaign along with the demonization of religious folks (CFA fiasco) for having religious beliefs which classify homosexuality as a sin, has really turned voters away from supporting or, at least, not opposing gay marriage. The reason I think society opinion regarding gay marriage is changing is because it is no longer a social requirement for gays to stay in the closet so more folks are being exposed to openly gay folks in everyday life and tend to not really care. That is how my opinion changed on the subject. As is true with most causes, the folks that are the most rabid tend to do more harm for their cause than good. Oh, and saying queer doesn't make one a bigot in my opinion. Sorry, words are just words. Just because some folks hold a different connotation than yours doesn't make it automatically bigoted. ##### is probably the most demeaning word to black Americans yet it is used as a term of endearment to many. Words are meaningless. Intent is what holds the meaning.

Which is funny when you consider there are atheists and folks who worship the devil and idolize peacocks who call their unions with their spouses "marriage" and no one seems to care or call for legislation against it. Where is all the outrage there? There are non-semetic religions all over the world (and in our country) that call their relationships marriage and there isn't any outrage. Why is there suddenly outrage over two gays calling it "marriage"? I'm not some rabid supporter of gay marriage, I just don't have any logical reason to oppose it. I don't see any logical reason (legally, not religiously) why anyone else would either.