Unless you're a guy with traveling with a kid and his stuffed toys, in which the disassembled pieces of a gun and some ammo were "artfully concealed".

See:
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11610867-gun-parts-ammo-found-hidden-inside-stuffed-animals-at-rhode-island-airport?lite

It looks like maybe the kid's mother was mad at the father and was trying to create problems or something. Complete and total idiocy in any case.
And now because of this, Are they going to start feeling between there? Are they going to make us strip, bend over and spread them? they just might. I'll strangle the bitch if I ever meet her.

I'll strangle the bitch...
Redirect your rage at the f'wads in the TSA who are violating your rights, rather than someone you think is giving them pointers on how to do it better.

I've told them to take down the Bill of Rights hanging up by the 'security area' at SRQ, seeing as how it doesn't apply there.

always go back to the argument that what's important is: when was the last terrorist plot foiled in the DOMESTIC aviation system? Never?

The TSA doesn't do things outside the US, and they certainly wouldn't have "caught" anyone flying on 9-11... With current rules, you'd just have have a framed picture of your sainted mom in your carry-on... that you then break and take the plane with those sharp edges...

Except, oh, yeah, now the pilot doors are hardened, and people on the plane are not going to just give up and play nice like they once did.

they fight the last battle while everything has changed, and they don't bother to harden the baggage system or the handler background checks...

Sweet Revenge - might not be your style...

For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)

=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

always go back to the argument that what's important is: when was the last terrorist plot foiled in the DOMESTIC aviation system? Never?

Okay, let me get this straight. All the plots to bring down airliners originate overseas, and not domestically.

And you want to use this as an argument that TSA security measures are ineffective?

NB: I am not saying they are completely effective, or well designed, or appropriately targeted. I should know, since I go through them more often, and in more places, than anyone you know.

But effective security is about defense in depth. The fact that the Splodeydopes are hatching these plots where they can avoid domestic US security measures probably means something.

Jeff - it's because they live over there.

The preceding sentence is an example of bad logic.

Good logic says that since TSA does NOT search freight, that TSA personnel have been bribed to put packages on board planes, and that there are literally thousands of other venues at which to strike, with deadly materials available at practically every truck stop means that one of two things is going on:

1) There is another agency which is effective; or
2) There is no enemy.

There's no money or power to be had at #2.

Meanwhile, you can ship ammunition by air. You should think about what that means about counterdetection measures now.

I wish someone would come up with a plot to destroy an airline that could only be prevented by seating everyone in First Class and serving them free drinks.

Okay, let me get this straight. All the plots to bring down airliners originate overseas, and not domestically. -- Jeff Guinn at May 9, 2012 6:52 PM

It doesn't matter:

The shoe bomber, Richard Colvin Reid, had his flight originate from Paris France.

The panty bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had his flight originate from Amsterdam.

Both the panty and shoe bomber had their attacks thwarted by their fellow passengers.

Until you realize that the paradigm has changed and have that in your gut the rest makes no sense.

Up until September 2011, the typical hijack scenario was they would load the terrorists on "long" flights (plenty of fuel). The terrorists would land and then negotiate passengers for the ability to fly to some <middle east country> country that they would have "freedom". The reason many didn't succeed is that after Entebbe, the airlines, the military, aircraft manufacturers came up with ways to beat the hijackers.

On 9/11 the terrorists changed the rules -- they didn't care to land, they wanted to strictly destroy.

Once the passengers of flight 93 knew they did want to be the not-so-smart missile, they counter-attacked.

I won't say that their will never be another Lockerbie. But it is very doubtful there will be a match to planes crashing into buildings.

It is clear there are still groups out there that would love nothing better than to bring down as many airliners as they can manage, as spectacularly as possible.

We have several data points.

First, there have been a half dozen or so attempts, all of which have failed, two primarily through inadequate design and execution.

All of these attempts were intiated overseas, despite clear evidence that at least some jihadis live here.

If there is motivation, means and opportunity, then why aren't we carrying around steel umbrellas as protection against falling airplane pieces?

It could be that, in spite of all the annoyances, delays, and inefficiency, that the TSA adds a complication to planning an attack, to a degree that forces the splodeydopes to try other avenues. Doesn't necessarily mean that is true, but the explanation fits the facts.

... meanwhile, you can ship ammunition by air. You should think about what that means about counterdetection measures now.

More than just ammunition. You can ship explosives, too.

As long as they are declared in advance as hazardous cargo.

BTW, 100% of what goes in the belly of US-originating passenger airliners is screened.

Until you have that the paradigm has changed and you have that in your gut the rest makes no sense.

I'm an airline pilot, I know far more about how the paradigm has changed than can fit here.

Because of intrusion resistant cockpit doors and changed procedures, there will never be another hijacking. (possibly excepting some developing world areas).

That isn't what keeps the TSA up at night -- getting sufficient explosives onto an airplane to cause either severe damage or total loss is.

Given how badly some people want for that to happen, how easy it is to do, and how readily available the means are, something does not add up.

The way the TSA goes about its task makes it a fat target for criticism. But completely discounting their effectiveness flies in the face of the evidence.

"BTW, 100% of what goes in the belly of US-originating passenger airliners is screened."

That's funny. Evidently you missed the part where baggage handlers were bribed to put things on planes.

And if you wanted to talk about how "something does not add up", you might not have put the terms about screening and shipping explosives in the same post.

Because there you allow a package label to be your only defense. The only reason you can tell it's gasoline going into your car is the label on the pump. You have no way to tell what is in it aside from the gross characteristics, and then only if you're looking carefully.

There are thousands of ways to kill and maim thousands of Americans at a time. It's not happening, even feet away from where the TSA workers are groping children because Daddy wants to ride an Airbus.