TSA Begins Rolling Out Less-Invasive "Gingerbread Man" Body Scanners to U.S. Airports - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GunFox;31785730]The firearms one is actually less strict than most people imagine. It is this bizarre chimera of laws that have eventually produced our current situation. It is, technically, legal to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher. You just have to find one for sale from a licensed dealer, live in a state that permits them, and pay the 200 dollar tax stamp for the launcher and every RPG you buy. Similarly, all fully automatic weapons made prior to 1986 can be obtained in a similar fashion. But by doing so, you walk into a legal minefield. All sorts of weird restrictions and such. The slate really just needs to be wiped clean and started from scratch. Several federal firearms laws were put on the books in an illegal fashion and shouldn't actually be upheld in court, but they are.[/QUOTE]Exactly. And here in Maryland where I live, I as a regular citizen cannot obtain a carry permit. DC recently had the same rules until they were overturned. Right away, violent crime took a 180 degree turn. I wish they did the same here. Maryland has turn into such a slum. Maryland State Police say you need a "good and substantial reason" to have a carry permit. They also say "simply living in a dangerous area doesn't count."

[QUOTE=faze;31785755]Exactly. And here in Maryland where I live, I as a regular citizen cannot obtain a carry permit. DC recently had the same rules until they were overturned. Right away, violent crime took a 180 degree turn. I wish they did the same here. Maryland has turn into such a slum.[/QUOTE] Give it a year or three. CC permit laws have been spreading like wildfire over the past decade or so. State by state, they are realizing that they can't argue with results. Best case scenario, they cause a drop in crime rate, while the worst case sees it not affecting the crime rates at all.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31785810]Give it a year or three. CC permit laws have been spreading like wildfire over the past decade or so. State by state, they are realizing that they can't argue with results. Best case scenario, they cause a drop in crime rate, while the worst case sees it not affecting the crime rates at all.[/QUOTE]Agreed. While I lean to the left on most issues, with weapon laws I am totally to the right. Most Democrats are making these gun laws based on personal beliefs. When in reality, most crimes are not committed with legally obtained weapons. Most are committed with black market, off the street weapons. Give innocent people the ability to use lethal force to protect themselves, and hide the gun under their shirt, robberies and such go WAY down. DC is a prime example.

[QUOTE=faze;31785862]Agreed. While I lean to the left on most issues, with weapon laws I am totally to the right. Most Democrats are making these gun laws based on personal beliefs. When in reality, most crimes are not committed with legally obtained weapons. Most are committed with black market, off the street weapons. Give innocent people the ability to use lethal force to protect themselves, and hide the gun under their shirt, robberies and such go WAY down. DC is a prime example.[/QUOTE] It always bothers me that firearms are seen as a right wing thing. Traditionally it is the right wing that is going by its gut, rather than the facts, while the left wing is the reverse. But statistically the US proves time and time again that passing strict gun control laws does nothing.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31786054]It always bothers me that firearms are seen as a right wing thing. Traditionally it is the right wing that is going by its gut, rather than the facts, while the left wing is the reverse. But statistically the US proves time and time again that passing strict gun control laws does nothing.[/QUOTE]Left wing, as far as I'm concerned is anti-gun. Weapons and protection are a conservative belief. Liberals believe in "worldwide peace" and such. Traditionally speaking.

[QUOTE=faze;31785862]Agreed. While I lean to the left on most issues, with weapon laws I am totally to the right. Most Democrats are making these gun laws based on personal beliefs. When in reality, most crimes are not committed with legally obtained weapons. Most are committed with black market, off the street weapons. Give innocent people the ability to use lethal force to protect themselves, and hide the gun under their shirt, robberies and such go WAY down. DC is a prime example.[/QUOTE] I am completely for concealed carry as well as gun rights in general, however self-defense laws need to be very specific. Shooting someone for trying to punch you in the face is not acceptable. Liberal gun ownership laws, while it is supported mostly by Conservatives, is a Liberal idea at its core. Also, the notion that Democrats run on "anti-gun" platforms is preposterous. Sure there are Democrats who want more restrictions on weapons, but it isn't an inherent trait of being a Democrat or a Leftist for that matter.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786672]I am completely for concealed carry as well as gun rights in general, however self-defense laws need to be very specific. Shooting someone for trying to punch you in the face is not acceptable. Liberal gun ownership laws, while it is supported mostly by Conservatives, is a Liberal idea at its core. Also, the notion that Democrats run on "anti-gun" platforms is preposterous. Sure there are Democrats who want more restrictions on weapons, but it isn't an inherent trait of being a Democrat or a Leftist for that matter.[/QUOTE]It's widely known that lethal action may only be used if you fear for your life.

Every time I go to the airport I have to show them my hip patient recipient ID card, then I have to go through one of these things, then I have to stand off to the side for a few minutes while someone gets ready to pat me down because I have a metal hip replacement. It's quite annoying and flustering. I think the TSA guy in Hawaii owes me a second date, he got really personal.

[QUOTE=OvB;31788570]Every time I go to the airport I have to show them my hip patient recipient ID card, then I have to go through one of these things, then I have to stand off to the side for a few minutes while someone gets ready to pat me down because I have a metal hip replacement. It's quite annoying and flustering. I think the TSA guy in Hawaii owes me a second date, he got really personal.[/QUOTE]You had a hip replacement? Damn.

[QUOTE=OvB;31788570]Every time I go to the airport I have to show them my hip patient recipient ID card, then I have to go through one of these things, then I have to stand off to the side for a few minutes while someone gets ready to pat me down because I have a metal hip replacement. It's quite annoying and flustering. I think the TSA guy in Hawaii owes me a second date, he got really personal.[/QUOTE] And how old are you?

If someone is serious about bombing the fuck out of an airplane or airport, they're going to bomb the fuck out of it, it doesn't matter how many fancy machines and dick-o-vision scanners you put them through, if they're serious, they'll find a way.

[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;31788691]If someone is serious about bombing the fuck out of an airplane or airport, they're going to bomb the fuck out of it, it doesn't matter how many fancy machines and dick-o-vision scanners you put them through, if they're serious, they'll find a way.[/QUOTE]Exactly. Anybody can be a pilot for the most part.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31786672]I am completely for concealed carry as well as gun rights in general, however self-defense laws need to be very specific. Shooting someone for trying to punch you in the face is not acceptable. Liberal gun ownership laws, while it is supported mostly by Conservatives, is a Liberal idea at its core. Also, the notion that Democrats run on "anti-gun" platforms is preposterous. Sure there are Democrats who want more restrictions on weapons, but it isn't an inherent trait of being a Democrat or a Leftist for that matter.[/QUOTE] Thus far, we have done reasonably well with our current self defense laws. The problem with making them specific is this: People vary in terms of the amount of punishment they can physically take and the level of defense they are capable of projecting. However regardless of these abilities, everyone has the inherent right to be safe in their persons from serious bodily injury or death at the hands of another human being without provocation. A pregnant woman could very well be in serious danger from a man trying to beat her bare-fisted. A boxer can cause fatal injuries to even a healthy adult male without the aid of a weapon. Once we codify these restrictions where you can't shoot someone simply because they don't also sport a firearm, or a sufficiently dangerous weapon, then you start creating loopholes in the system. Ignoring duty to retreat and all that other ridiculous bullshit, the system generally runs on the idea that if the person defending themselves had, given the evidence provided to them at the time, good reason to believe that their life or health was in danger, that they are justified in taking their attacker's life in self defense, regardless of the weapon used. All bullshit aside, this seems to be about the most reasonable concept in our legal system. Passing laws specifically regarding firearms and self defense is a VERY steep cliff.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31788733]Thus far, we have done reasonably well with our current self defense laws. The problem with making them specific is this: People vary in terms of the amount of punishment they can physically take and the level of defense they are capable of projecting. However regardless of these abilities, everyone has the inherent right to be safe in their persons from serious bodily injury or death at the hands of another human being without provocation. A pregnant woman could very well be in serious danger from a man trying to beat her bare-fisted. A boxer can cause fatal injuries to even a healthy adult male without the aid of a weapon. Once we codify these restrictions where you can't shoot someone simply because they don't also sport a firearm, or a sufficiently dangerous weapon, then you start creating loopholes in the system. Ignoring duty to retreat and all that other ridiculous bullshit, the system generally runs on the idea that if the person defending themselves had, given the evidence provided to them at the time, good reason to believe that their life or health was in danger, that they are justified in taking their attacker's life in self defense, regardless of the weapon used. All bullshit aside, this seems to be about the most reasonable concept in our legal system. Passing laws specifically regarding firearms and self defense is a VERY steep cliff.[/QUOTE]Very steep cliff indeed. With every anti-gun law that is passed, the further away from the constitution we get.

The terrorists won in the sense that every single person that walks in an airport is now a suspect.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;31788798]The terrorists won in the sense that every single person that walks in an airport is now a suspect.[/QUOTE]That's kind of what they wanted. They know they can't defeat the west, but they can fuck shit up.

[QUOTE=Van-man;31788652]And how old are you?[/QUOTE] 19.

[QUOTE=ART1E117;31781894]Why are people so insecure about this shit. As a frequent traveler I don't care if a TSA employee sees my nads, as long as some asshole with a bomb doesn't get on the plane with me.[/QUOTE] Because the system they have really sucks. It in no way prevents bombs, and all it can REALLY do is prevent high grade weapons from coming on, and you don't really need high grade to take out a plane.

[QUOTE=TehDoctorz;31789515]Because the system they have really sucks. It in no way prevents bombs, and all it can REALLY do is prevent high grade weapons from coming on, and you don't really need high grade to take out a plane.[/QUOTE]I.E. the underwear bomber.

Why bother blowing up a plane anyways. The value of blowing up a plane is extremely limited. Terrorist have used bombs against planes for quite some time, but the goal is almost never to blow up the plane, but to hijack it for other purposes. 200 hostages or a giant guided missile filled with innocent people are much more valuable, given the required effort, to a terrorist faction. If you just want to kill a bunch of people, there are a wide variety of other ways to do so that require less effort.

[QUOTE=a-cookie;31781930]The insecure ones are ashamed of their small genitals Or they don't want people looking at them.[/QUOTE] I don't want an insecure TSA worker to feel ashamed of their small genitals

[QUOTE=GunFox;31789657]Why bother blowing up a plane anyways. The value of blowing up a plane is extremely limited. Terrorist have used bombs against planes for quite some time, but the goal is almost never to blow up the plane, but to hijack it for other purposes. 200 hostages or a giant guided missile filled with innocent people are much more valuable, given the required effort, to a terrorist faction. If you just want to kill a bunch of people, there are a wide variety of other ways to do so that require less effort.[/QUOTE]Yep. Get some suicidal terrorists and let em walk into a mall. 200+ people dead.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31789657]Why bother blowing up a plane anyways. The value of blowing up a plane is extremely limited. Terrorist have used bombs against planes for quite some time, but the goal is almost never to blow up the plane, but to hijack it for other purposes. 200 hostages or a giant guided missile filled with innocent people are much more valuable, given the required effort, to a terrorist faction. If you just want to kill a bunch of people, there are a wide variety of other ways to do so that require less effort.[/QUOTE] but blowing up planes gets you street cred, shits hard yo

[QUOTE=faze;31789727]Yep. Get some suicidal terrorists and let em walk into a mall. 200+ people dead.[/QUOTE] Plant a small bomb on a train track. Derail a large train in a populated city. 200+ people dead, no suicide bomber necessary. Plus a lot of wounded people. Wounded people are the money shot. People who are now terrified for the rest of their existence and will support whatever measures restrict their freedom.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31789816]Plant a small bomb on a train track. Derail a large train in a populated city. 200+ people dead, no suicide bomber necessary. Plus a lot of wounded people. Wounded people are the money shot. People who are now terrified for the rest of their existence and will support whatever measures restrict their freedom.[/QUOTE]I'm surprised they haven't fucked with Amtrak yet. Between DC and Boston there are tons of "middle of nowhere" rainways that carry 100% packed passenger trains. They have very little security on those things.

The biggest threat is always scuttling several cargo ships in major ports. If you can shut down a major port for a week or two by scuttling giant cargo containers in port, then all sorts of fucked up supply problems arise for the US.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31789908]The biggest threat is always scuttling several cargo ships in major ports. If you can shut down a major port for a week or two by scuttling giant cargo containers in port, then all sorts of fucked up supply problems arise for the US.[/QUOTE]That's a lesser threat than railway disasters. The USA has thousands of ports.

[QUOTE=faze;31789930]That's a lesser threat than railway disasters. The USA has thousands of ports.[/QUOTE] Not really. We have a handful of major ones that are important to the economy.

[QUOTE=OvB;31789966]Not really. We have a handful of major ones that are important to the economy.[/QUOTE]Shipments can be easily diverted to ports that are close by. That was my point.

[QUOTE=faze;31789930]That's a lesser threat than railway disasters. The USA has thousands of ports.[/QUOTE] Less than you would think actually. The ports capable of servicing the massive container ships are quite few. They require connections to major railways and freeways. They also need a lot of special equipment to unload the volume of materials required. I took a class about three years ago on national security, and scuttling container ships in ports ranks among probably the top five threats. The US only has about a 2 week supply of goods at any given time. So even if you disrupt the chain for a week, there will be a period where a huge portion of the United States sees shortages of products on the shelves. It sounds stupid as hell, but it is one thing to see people die on TV, but when a huge swath of the country is now having shortages as stupid as poptarts and toilet paper, you wind up with problems. A smart terrorist knows that killing people is only a means to an end. The goal is to have a nation eat itself politically, not win a ground war. So when several states in the midwest suddenly start voting hardcore in favor of things that violate our amendments because someone managed to shut down the port of Houston, it is a huge boon to whatever assbags want us dead. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Houston[/url]) [editline]17th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;31790043]Shipments can be easily diverted to ports that are close by. That was my point.[/QUOTE] Look at the little graph. Those are our major ports. That is pretty much all of them. You only need to cripple one important one for there to be serious problems. Certain supplies arrive at certain ports. Ports operate pretty close to capacity, so diverting shipments is going to create a very, very, long line.