TSA --> TYJA?

[sirs]

And perhaps you should leave the personal attacks out of your flailing arguments.

That's a presentation of hypersensitivity, since it was neither a "personal attack" or "flailing arguement".  If I had left out the reference, you would have erroneously criticized me for advocating that Cu4 can't make up his mind without a conservative pundit telling him what to think.  I merely put that to a stop before it got started.

The fact your taking time out of your schedule to "personally attack" me with the misrepresentation garbage, demonstrates the accuracy of my deductions

[sirs]

SIRS when I state the courts and congress have deemed something "Constitutional" that is because it is in fact presently "constitutonal".

And so is abortion.  Doesn't make it right, does it.  So, if it is ruled unconsitutional, you will have then "seen the light"?

Survival within reason trumps everything for me SIRS.

And The Constitution trumps the perception of security for me.  I'd even give my life in the defense of this country, its constitution, and its freedom.  Its what so many of our fantastic military have done for me.  It's the least I can do for them

[BT]

If I had left out the reference, you would have erroneously criticized me for advocating that Cu4 can't make up his mind without a conservative pundit telling him what to think.

All in all, excepting the dekba dispatches, CU pretty much writes his own stuff.

[sirs]

I know that.  My deduction was on you criticizing me, for supposedly advocating the above.  I merely cut that tactic off before it got going.  Your continuing to harp on this continues to reinforce the accuracy to my deduction

[Christians4LessGvt]

And so is abortion.  Doesn't make it right, does it. 

No, never said or implied it did....but I am not the one saying it "tramples on the Constitution".
Abortion is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is.
These searches are not "trampling on the constitution" because the Courts and Congress made that decision.
You are free to have an opinion about it, but your opinion does not determine reality in the way the courts and congress do.
You seem to be constitutional one moment, but then not accept that the constitution itself sets up Congress & the Courts to make these decisions.

So, if it is ruled unconsitutional, you will have then "seen the light"?

Of course if the searches are ruled unconstitutional then I could hardly say they are constitutional.
You on the other hand want to pick and choose what the Supreme Court rules you accept as constitutional.

And The Constitution trumps the perception of security for me.
I'd even give my life in the defense of this country, its constitution, and its freedom.
Its what so many of our fantastic military have done for me.  It's the least I can do for them

LOL.....ok SIRS....the guilt trip is killing me!
You're brave & patriotic & people that support security measures that the Courts & Congress say are constitutional are not. 
Plus it's a strawman argument anyway....the courts & congress agree with me that the searches are reasonable and Constitutional.
This isn't a case of security "trumping" the constitution, because the searches are constitutional per congress and the courts

[sirs]

And so is abortion.  Doesn't make it right, does it. 

No, never said or implied it did....but I am not the one saying it "tramples on the Constitution".

Yea, that would be THIS CONSERVATIVE, as it is actually an assault on the Bill of Rights, vs merely reading into the Constitution a right that never existed before.  Minus a presumtion of guilt, groping people who have done nothing, or taking pornagraphic-like images is wholly unreasonable.  I'm surprised at the level of political correctness you're adopting in order to feel safer

These searches are not "trampling on the constitution" because the Courts and Congress made that decision.

Yes, IMHO, they are.  Just because the Fed can get away with it, doesn't make it right.  Congress & the Courts have trampled on the Constitution for eons, doesn't mean conservatives are going to shut up when they do it again, and again, and again. 

You seem to be constitutional one moment, but then not accept that the constitution itself sets up Congress & the Courts to make these decisions.

Example being?

Of course if the searches are ruled unconstitutional then I could hardly say they are constitutional.

But you'd still support them, correct?  You just wouldn't have the defense of "the courts said it was ok" to use, any longer.  See, that's the difference between our 2 arguments.  I'm using the constitution and the clear intentions provided for, by way of the founders, and you're using "the courts said it was ok".

So, if the courts rule that they are constitutional, outside of a SCOTUS ruling, I'm still going to defend the constitution.  If SCOTUS rules my way, I will have been vindicated  If SCOTUS rules them Constitutional, then we've simply had another RvW moment in this country

So, what will your status be with a SCOTUS decision if:
yes, it's ok-
no, it's unconstitutional-

And if Scalia, Thomas, Alito vote my way....will that open your eyes at all?

This isn't a case of security "trumping" the constitution, because the searches are constitutional per congress and the courts

Yea, because the Congress & the courts never (cough, social security) ever does anything (cough, campaign finance reform) contrary to (cough, abortion) the clear intentions (cough, Obamacare) of the Constitution.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Yea, that would be THIS CONSERVATIVE, as it is actually an assault on the Bill of Rights,
vs merely reading into the Constitution a right that never existed before.  

The US Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States
which by the way is Conservative agrees with THIS CONSERVATIVE.

Minus a presumption of guilt, groping people who have done nothing,

There is no presumption of guilt, there is a reasonable search to protect the public
from bombs being brought upon airplanes.

or taking pornagraphic-like images is wholly unreasonable

What is unreasonable is allowing bombs on planes.
Given the choice it is clear which is much more unreasonable.

Plus the images are not even close to "pornographic" & do not stand to the test of
the definition of the word "pornographic" or "pornography".

I'm surprised at the level of political correctness you're adopting in order to feel safer

You call it political correctness....I call it sanity. You will too if we go your way
and there are hundreds if not thousands of dead bodies of women and children.
Indirectly you will have "blood on your hands".
And then after a couple of planes explodes you try to sell your "no search" stance to the public that will be angry as hell.
I promise you they wont be buying.
That's the thing...eventually my way is gonna win....the IslamoNazis will blow up some planes.
It's just sad that hundreds maybe thousands will have to die to convince doubters.

Example being?

One moment you are sooooo worried about the Constitution and presumed innocence
but you are being evasive as to how you would secure our airplanes.
I asked you directly if we go the "Israeli route" how could you support
those security measures and not be concerned about the citizens constitutional rights
that would seem to be in the same category as the ones you are outraged about now?
Arab Americans will have their "constitutional rights trampled"..where's your outrage?
Under the Israel profiling people are asked questions, if they refuse to answer they
are "presumed guilty" and other more severe screening is done. How can you be
outraged about "presumed guilt" as you call it now, but OK with "presumed guilt"
under the Israeli system? If you do not support the Israeli methods I will ask
again...what specifically would you do to keep our planes safer from bombs
being brought on board? Interview everybody on 30,000 flights a day?...Sure!

But you'd still support them, correct?  

Yes we've already gone over this.
The Supreme Court says abortion is constitutional, but I oppose abortion.
But I don't say abortion is unconstitutional....that would be insane....because it is constitutional.

You just wouldn't have the defense of "the courts said it was OK" to use, any longer.  

A defense? I am stating facts of the reality we live in.

See, that's the difference between our 2 arguments.  
I'm using the constitution and the clear intentions provided for,
by way of the founders, and you're using "the courts said it was OK".

LOL...yeah sure SIRS.
When the courts side with you they are following the constitution.
When the courts set up by the constitution side against you
They aren't following the constitution.

BTW...did you ever answer if you think it is ok that we don't allow ordinary citizens
to buy/sell machine guns when the Constitution makes no mention of what
type of guns citizens should be allowed to carry?

So, if the courts rule that they are constitutional, outside of a SCOTUS ruling,
 I'm still going to defend the constitution.  

But you are only "defending the constitution" in your own mind.
My stance is backed by people the Constitution says should decides these matters.
I feel as though I am defending the Constitution as much or more than you.
To you the Constitution appears to be a cafeteria to choose from.
You accept Supreme Court decisions sometimes and then pretend
the body is totally corrupt trampling the Constitution when you dont agree.

So, what will your status be with a SCOTUS decision if:
yes, it's OK-
no, it's unconstitutional-

My status? Whats that mean?

And if Scalar, Thomas, Ali to vote my way....will that open your eyes at all?

I would always be interested in what they say, but if I don't agree logically with them
then I would not agree with them....pretty simple for me...either I would agree or disagree with them.

[Amianthus]

Do you support that it has been decided that a citizen's Second Amendment
rights are not violated by making it illegal to own a machine-gun?

It's not illegal to own a machine gun. My neighbor has a bunch, so do a number of friends. It just requires a special license, which includes a significant background check.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Ya know SIRS after doing some reading during this discussion with you I am now
leaning towards dropping the option for passengers to refuse the full body scanner.
The American People overwhelmingly support the use of the full body scanners and
really I don't see not much upside in allowing people to "opt out" and choose the more
problematic body pat-down. Of course there may be a few instances for medical
reasons people would need to opt out of the full body scanner, but the majority
of people refusing the full body scanner should not be allowed to make that choice.
They should be able to choose full body scan or they can't fly. Somehow I think
you wont agree! (lol)



Poll: 4 in 5 Support Full-Body Airport Scanners

November 15, 2010
 
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Americans have differing views on two potentially inconvenient and invasive practices that airports could
implement to uncover potential terrorist attacks, a new CBS News poll shows. Americans overwhelmingly
approve of the use of full-body digital x-ray machines - a new technology in use at some airports in the U.S.
Most, meanwhile, do not approve of racial or ethnic profiling - a practice not in place.

In response to continued security threats, the Transportation and Security Administration recently began introducing
full body scanners with more enhanced technology than past devices into airports nationwide. If a passenger refuses
to pass through the new scanners, TSA agents are now allowed to conduct a very detailed, very personal, body search
on that person.

Althoughsome civil rights groups allege that they represent an unconstitutional invasion of privacy,
Americans overwhelmingly agree that airports should use the digital x-ray machines to electronically
screen passengers in airport security lines, according to the new poll. Eighty-one percent think airports
should use these new machines  -- including a majority of both men and women, Americans of all age groups,
and Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Fifteen percent said airports should not use them.

In an op-ed for USA Today, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano today urged Americans to be patient in the
face of the heightened airplane security measures.

"Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly
adapting their tactics for doing so," she wrote. "Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based,
layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement,
advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration."

While the TSA has implemented new security measures, it does not single out individuals based on their ethnic or
racial backgrounds. (It has since 2003 conducted behavioral profiling.)

Most Americans do not think it would be justified for people of certain racial or ethnic groups to be subject to additional
security checks at airport checkpoints. Fifty-two percent say no, while 37 percent say it would be justified.

Feelings on this may be sensitive to news about terror threats. Back in January 2010 -- after a failed Christmas Day attempt
by a Nigerian citizen to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear on a flight to Detroit - a slight majority of Americans
thought ethnic profiling was justified. In 2006, shortly after British authorities unveiled a potential terror plot using liquid
explosives, 49 percent of Americans supported ethnic profiling at airports.

Some groups of Americans see this issue differently. Republicans are divided on this issue, while Americans over 65 and those
who think a terrorist attack within the next few months is very likely are more apt to think ethnic and racial profiling is justified
than not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

[Christians4LessGvt]

It's not illegal to own a machine gun. My neighbor has a bunch, so do a number of friends.
It just requires a special license, which includes a significant background check.

Ok AMI fair enough...it is illegal to own a machine gun in the US unless you get the special govt permit.
(happy now?...lol)
Although AMI I understand that there are several states that do not allow full auto at all. I am pretty sure
DE, HI, IL, KS, NY, RI, WA do not allow full auto. Some states allow for ownership of machine guns only
by dealers and manufacturers: CA, IA, MI, MO, and MI. But you are correct AMI in the other states upon
a showing of good cause, a permit for possession for a fully automatic weapon may be issued by
the Department of Justice / ATF. You have to jump through some hoops, wait months, and then you can
become a part of a tiny percentage of the population that can legally own one of these very expensive guns.
I think it must be made before 1986, and strict rules followed in their use, transportation, and resale. So my
question still is the same to SIRS, does he support some states ability to ban machine guns completely and
does he support the "hoops" and scrutiny the govt has set up with obvious intent to discourage machine
guns among our citizenry?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I feel less threatened by individual gun fanciers owning their own machine guns than by terrorists putting bombs on planes.

I don't feel very threatened by either, though. Idiots in traffic on I-95 are a far greater threat to me.

[sirs]

I guess that means we now need everyone who wants to operate/drive a car, to also go thru full body cavity searches & pornagrafic imaging.  Just to make sure, and make everyone feel safer.  I mean, if it saves just 1 life, why wouldn't we?

[BT]

Conservative justices seems to have bent the 4th to allow for roving checkpoints, it's just a matter of technology catching up with the law.

[sirs]

Conservative justices seem to know how to define reasonable vs not

[kimba1]

actually , i got no problem making the drivers test alittle more difficult.