TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:
Then why can you not carry your weapon on a plane? And why must you jump through special hoops to even carry it in checked baggage where it cannot be accessed and cannot possibly harm anyone? And why can you not even agree to go through a search and be checked and then walk with your guest down to the actual gate to wait with them until takeoff?

Answer: They are looking to control you and prepare you for more actions. It clearly is not anti-terrorism or anyone could go through the safety search and go down to the gate.

srothstein wrote: So far, the problem I have seen reported in not stopping the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks was that the various intelligence and investigative agencies did not talk to each other or even listen when their own employees raised suspicions. We could have had the information on them and stopped them IF we had wanted to, all while obeying the laws. Or, to give you another thought to think about, consider how quickly after the attacks we had identified which passengers it was that were the criminals, including releasing that information to the public. And we did it without having any evidence available from the scenes, which means we had to have known about it in advance or at least had the suspects identified in advance.

Just as with the 1993 bombings, I firmly believe that the government knew about it and decided we wanted a better case than just a conspiracy charge, and it backfired on them. This is not a criticism since it is a tactical and strategic question to be answered at the time and I wasn't there. I am just observing that the criminal justice system and intelligence system in place was working and could have stopped it IF they had made different decisions. And conspiracy charges would have worked to stop many of the cases that were posted as hypothetical what do we do cases.

austin wrote:

srothstein wrote:

iflyabeech wrote:
There is a rule, by TSA, that when they decide to up the security threat level, they can stop and search all cars in a certain area in the airport. Is this a proper law that meets the Constitutional requirements? I do not think so, as it has not been proven to be the best way to do its intended function. Does it help calm the masses and make them think the government is fighting terrorism? Yes, because they really do not understand how the real world works.

Timothy McVeigh was found out by a traffic stop. Thats how most felons are found.

If I had spent a year planning something and thought it would be found out by a random stop, then I would not attempt it.

Speaking of propery rights, who owns the airport? Enough said.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

iflyabeech wrote:How do you propose we stop them?

Well that is a loaded question, pull up a chair...

It would involve obtaining launch codes and authorization, and me winning the 2008 Presidential election...

KBCraig wrote:Hmmm... "iflyabeech". General Aviation, I presume?

Tell me: who checks you, your passengers, or what you load into that Beech before takeoff, to make sure you're not carrying a full load of avgas and dynamite on a kamikaze mission against an innocent civilian target?

....*crickets chirp*....

Nothing stops you from doing that, except your human decency.

A car bomb wold be totally ineffective as a weapon of terror, compared to a Twin Beech taking off from the GA side of Love, and crashing fast and level in a suicide bombing through the Southwest concourse.

Will938 wrote:

iflyabeech wrote: Your argument about other things being more important than terrorists is asinine. It belittles every single one of those folks who died that September day in 2001. Muslim extremists are trying to kill us.....How do you propose we stop them?
I am not sure what you are talking about. You don't have to be killed to be a affected by terrorism...Thats kind of the definition of terrorism- to inflict terror. We need to take the terrorists out. I am not afraid of them, but, by God, I will do anything in my power to protect my family, friends, and fellow Americans from them.
I refuse to forget.
I hate tell you, but if Billary is elected, you might have your way, and we will all be affected.

It is a slap in the face of all Americans to bow into what the point of terrorism is, to change our way of life. Why is it ok for our government to randomly search us, to listen in on our conversations, or to hold people as terrorists without a speedy trial (Americans, not gitmo). Why are we accepting such treatment, even if there is a chance of terrorism? There always has been, and always will be terrorism. The key is a good intel network overseas. Rely on good police work and legal intel here. Beyond that, leave us alone. Terrorists have already won here, they've got us thinking photographers are terrorists, that it is ok to allow the government to shread our rights a bit. People should be able to do as they always have before 9/11. Airlines are private companies and should be able to decide what legal item comes aboard their planes, not the government. I shouldn't be stopped for a random search ever. I shouldn't have to worry about things I say that might be suspicious and get unwanted attention from the "OMG a terrorist" crowd. If that results in more dead Americans then so be it, at least they would die with the freedoms they deserve, that hundreds of thousands of other Americans died to give them.

If Hillary gets elected nitrogen won't have his way, it will only get worse.

srothstein wrote:
Yes, they are looking for you and your guns. After all, there is no defintion of what is a terrorist and there have been some pretty weak claims made for it so far.

nitrogen wrote:

iflyabeech wrote:Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

I think you misunderstood my point.

My point is, I'm not afraid of this at all.

You have a 1 in 88,000 chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the USA.
You have a 1 in 55,000,000 chance of dying in an airplane due toterrorism.
You are more likely to die by being struck by lightning (1 in 55,000) or or in your bathtub (1 in 10,455)

You're MUCH more likely to be murdered (1 in 197) or shot (1 in 299).

There are plenty of other things that can kill us that our government should worry about, other than terrorism.
Not that I don't believe in being ready, mind you, but my point is, I think we're taking it way too far.

I'm more afraid of George Bush or Hillary Clinton with these newfound powers to "protect" us from something that's not very likely to affect us.