I'm glad I have no interest in flying

[Dave]

I don't have to worry about getting the pictures taken or the police
style pat downs. I understand the need for security and all but it's
gotten to the point where the pat downs are border line illegal..
unconstitutional even. The 4th ammendment protects us from the
following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

Having ones private areas touched by persons who are not even officers of the
law would seem to me to be an unreasonable search.

To anyone that fly's often, my sympathies. 

[Sweater Cows!]

Isn't there some country where each person upon turning 18 gets a rifle issued to them?

[Max]

"Yes we should/.lol They are so expensive-like plane tickets, lets issue them to all. Nothing like supporting zero population growth. hehehe"

Sounds great, but then the right of others to not own a gun would be infringed.

"But the problem is that I am terrified of flyingfalling to my death from 35K feet, it isn't like you can just pull over on a cloud and change the alternator if it goes out. Or stop the bomber/hijacker(in your guys opinion)."

If you are that scared then maybe you shouldn't fly. These unreasonable searches will not make you any safer.

'See to me IF I were to fly I would want everyone strip searched and hand searched and x-rayed. Three times over just to be safe. Odds are I will be driving."

See comment above.

"So then, aren't rights something we have without making a choice? Whether we are rich or poor?"

Having rights means you have the freedom to choose.

[Willy]

Lando
Your using the same twisted logic that Obama and the Democrats used to pass the Health Care Bill. Your rights to travel freely without restriction is your right. It shouldn't be decided by Washington. It's your right to determine your mode of transportaion, not the Government. Unless of course your one of those folks who wants Uncle Sam to take care of you and make all your decisions for you. I think the arguement that " driving a car is a privilage" is a bunch of bunk. Who says? Driving a car is your right. It's your choice as to the method you want to travel from one point to another. Folks like you have swallowed Governments nonsense, hook line and sinker. Then you make some silly comparison that if it's our right to fly then the Government should take charge and pay our tab because it's somone elses obligation to provide for our right to decide if we cannot afford to do so.

[Dave]

The issue here is security. I think we can all agree that unfortunately things in the world have caused there to be a need for security in certain areas.... how much security is where there is a problem. For several years now the TSA has provided security and its done well enough.. as far as I can remember, there hasn't really been any big incidents where the TSA missed something and someone got through security and caused big problems. The underwear bomber from last Christmas didn't board here in the USA so any security lapse was caused at the point he boarded the plane.

The body scanners are one thing, I think more people are having issue with the pat downs as they are done now. Pat downs before were done with the back of the hands and were not so intrusive. Having ones 'junk' handled would seem to be excessive and at least in my mind (and i'm sure in many other peoples minds) to be quite possibly unconstitutional. Honestly, I don't know if these newer style pat downs will catch anything more then the old ones.

It should be kept in mind also that just today, our Homeland Security Chief made it known that Trains, Boats and possibly buses could be up next for more enhanced security measures... so its just not a issue about flying anymore.

[Sweater Cows!]

"Trains, Boats and possibly buses......so its just not a issue about flying anymore."

To me that changes my opinion a bit. See, on a train boat or bus , you have the chance to 'leap' --out a window, overboard-- to safety. On a plane, well, ya can't just hop out the window onto a cloud when all craziness breaks loose.

Has anyone ever been patted down by the police? I have never thought it was any big thing, and they check for things rather well I believe. Yes, I was a very wild teenager, lol.

My Dad travels to Grand Cayman every few years, He has had both Hips replaced and both knees replaced. He was talking about his spring trip coming up in 2011 and how they take him into a room with glass windows and give him a thorough going over with the wand as he is so full of metal that he cannot get through the scanners. I am curious to see if the procedure is different this year.

I have to think though(regarding planes-not other transport modes- that the security is okay. I would prefer my Dad and all other to get searched heavily and that he make it home to me. I get terrified every time he leaves.

[Sweater Cows!]

".. as far as I can remember, there hasn't really been any big incidents where the TSA missed something and someone got through security and caused big problems." Other than 9-11. Just picking on you-I know what you meant.

(And that's if you believe it was a terror attack and not an inside job or empty planes)--But that is a whole different thread so lets not go there and rather just chuckle at the joke.

[Sweater Cows!]

"Your using the same twisted logic that Obama and the Democrats used to pass the Health Care Bill." HUH? wtf does that mean? I don't even know-it makes no sense!


"It's your right to determine your mode of transportaion, not the Government." In that regard then, people should go learn to fly and buy their own plane-then they wouldn't need to go to the airport, they could build their own and fly out of there back yard.

I believe-regarding planes only as far as the searches-that my 'right' to stay alive and expect to return home safe and sound trumps others right not to get felt up for bombs and such.

How would you feel if one of your loved ones got on a plane and died because there were no searches and some psycho blew it up or hijacked it? Would you still think that it was okay not to search people?

To me I prefer as close to a guarantee as I can get that myself or my family will be safe. If that offends someone else-fine. My right to travel and return home alive is stronger than your right to carry a bomb on a plane and kill me.

Now, don't get all sociopathic with the Obama/liberal this and that crap. You know very well what I mean is not in anyway related to that.

The best way around this issue is to allow racial profiling, because I don't believe in being politically correct, I will say we need to profile. It isn't Mr. Smith from Podunk Kentucky blowing stuff up.

[XLFD]

RJE,
In legal terms, a right is defined as a power, privilege,demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law, a duty is defined as any obligation that one person owes another. Furthermore, whenever one person has a right, another person has a corresponding duty to preserve that right-- or at least to not interfere with it.

For example, when you own a home you have a right to possess and enjoy it free from the interference of others, who are under a corresponding duty not to interfere with your rights by trespassing on your property, or breaking into your home. As another example, if a divorced woman has a right to receive alimony payments, her ex-husband has a duty to make the payments.

If you claim we have a right to travel in a certain conveyance, then others must have some duty to allow us to do that. Do I have the right to drive my car across your lawn? Be careful how you reply. But if all our land was privately owned, we would infringe on other'sr property rights, so we keep some land as public right-of-way for travel to take place.

Cars have been given access to these right of ways by developed roads, but even these restrict other's rights to travel. I cannot walk or bicycle on a limited access highway, nor can I ride my car on railroad tracks, down the sidewalk, or on the wrong side of the road. Perhaps I wish to travel by train or ORV. My options are limited by the laws and infrastructure existing.

So yes, driving is a privilege, and about the only time you could say you had the right to drive is if you did it solely on your own property.

[Willy]

XLFD

civil rights
n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of
travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but
a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common law right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty
of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v.
Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established
common right that does not owe its existence to the
federal government. It is recognized by the courts as
a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,
225 F2d 938, at 941.

"It could not be stated more directly or conclusively
that citizens of the states have a common law right to
travel, without approval or restriction (license), and
that this right is protected under the U.S
Constitution."

[XLFD]

RJE,
I definitely see where you're coming from, and agree with it to an extent. The government did infringe upon individual rights when they decided to have everyone who wished to drive need to be licensed. Our state MVC defines "license" as any driving privileges, license, temporary instruction permit, or temporary license issued under the laws of this state pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.

In Michigan and all other states, a license is required to drive by each state's law and thus it has become a privilege and not a right. Does this violate the US Constitution? Yes, but so does many taxes and attempts to limit the second amendment. I wish you and anyone else who desires to re-instate 'driving in the course of travel' as a right the best of luck in revoking the state's power to do so.

I leave you with a link to an article in our unofficial sister site, the Idaho Observer which goes through the genesis of this infringement, how it may apply to the thread we are on, and how it may continue in the gun control debate. Thank you for your reasoned reply.

http://proliberty.com/observer//20010213.htm

[Willy]

XLFD
Thanks for posting that link.

[XLFD]

Very good article even though its nearly ten years old. Notice how the health care project pushed by the Progressive Movement (neo-socialists) which culminated in our onerous 2000+ page health care law followed the same script.

They will tell you that you now have a right to health care, instead of being at the mercy of a list of boogeymen (HMOs, insurers, doctors, bureaucrats, et.al.). The opposite is true; you had a right to health care before this law, but now it has become a privilege granted by government. Before you had the right to choose your manner of treatment for your condition, your care-giver, your level of care, etc.; with the law you lose much of those choices and have several bureaucratic agencies choosing it for you.