I always like you blog, Amy, but on certain dais, when you have concise, pointed, IMPORTANT posts like this, I LOVE it.

Keep up the good work.

Damn Skippy.

Traveling freely is a right.

Flying is a means of doing so.

All rights are not absolute and the government can impose reasonable restrictions. For ex:
Flying: Can't fly if you're traveling with a gun or explosives. Same for most public transportation.
Driving: Cant get a license if you are blind or otherwise impaired,
Guns: You have a right to own a gun, but not automatic weapons ( banned for civilians in 1934 ), grenades or grenade launchers, etc
Speech: Absolute right, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre...unless, of course, there really is a fire.
There are others, but you get the idea.

Okay, Conan - add your name to the list of people ducking this question:

What mode of travel is your right?

An awful lot of people want to say, "No, not that one", whenever some particular action is suggested in the exercise of rights - and few seem to realize they shackle themselves when they imagine telling others what to do, or not do.

But, getting on someone else's airplane requires you to comply with their wishes. And I'm sure as hell not getting on any plane with anyone of a swarthy complexion unless they're x-rayed, even if it means that I have to be searched, too. If you want to fly without getting frisked, buy your own plane, or flap your wings as hard as you flap you gums.

"If you want to fly without getting frisked, buy your own plane,..."

That doesn't help. The TSA searches private aircraft too.

"But, getting on someone else's airplane requires you to comply with their wishes."

No, that's wrong.

Getting on an airliner today means that you comply with government wishes.

Imagine, for a moment, if the free market were involved. You could travel on an airline mandating body cavity searches and handcuffed passengers, the very model of "safety" - or you could travel one without restrictions.

Choose the method you would select for yourself.

"That doesn't help. The TSA searches private aircraft too."

Because, TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration...

that being the case, Marcus, can you see how this MIGHT be a problem? Swarthy complexion my old shiney whitey hiney... The old Zuni lady that slept on my shoulder as I took a bus to New Mexico in my youth, wasn't a threat, I'm thinkin' and my Assyrian friends are not muslim.

The problem with the intelligence thing, is we see daily over and over, that our government, isn't.

The vectors of the next attack are probably not going to be the same, not with the millions of soft targets in the US.

I think the old security was fine, keeping guns and such off planes. We beef'd the cockpit doors, and woke up from our naive stupor as passengers...

The rest is an excercise in Risk Reduction, except the things they are doing, are only a show.

What's the security like at the Port of LA or New York?
Who's watching the baggage handlers on the tarmac?

Asking me for my papers, figuring out manually what my religion is... what's next a DNA sample?

If you say "we need to do this:" if that contravenes a buncha rights and law, then you better show how it works in TRUTH, and show me how giving up any rights makes me safer.

And no, 'you'll be safer in jail' is NOT the correct answer.

Nick,

I know this is a foolish waste of time but I'll still type some logic to you:

All rights are not absolute and the government can impose reasonable restrictions.

I will agree with the idea of reasonable restrictions but those are concomitant with the the most liberty for the most people. We are a representative republic, not a democracy. In a democracy everyone has to follow the rules of the majority. In a republic it means that the majority may follow god and Jesus, but a minority can follow the teachings of Buddha or have no religious affiliation and not be persecuted for it.

There is a reason for the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Add that the Tenth and subsequently the Fourteenth said that the people have the rights, and have to be usurped by the federal government with justification.

For ex:

Flying: Can't fly if you're traveling with a gun or explosives. Same for most public transportation.

While McDonald v. Chicago is still not observed by Illinois, it effectively incorporated the second amendment into the state's Constitutions. The states can not deprive you of the right to keep and bear arms. That the TSA does not observe this right is a different story.

Driving: Cant get a license if you are blind or otherwise impaired,

This is a state's issue. A state cannot deprive you of state issued identification documents because of handicap. This has never been challenged, but is the assumption. In addition, with today's technology, many impaired (handicapped) drivers have been equipped with specialized equipment to allow them to drive with disabilities. An example is here.

Guns: You have a right to own a gun, but not automatic weapons ( banned for civilians in 1934 ), grenades or grenade launchers, etc

Realistically the NFA has never been challenged, regardless the number of us that would like to see it happen. The NFA has had essentially no effect on gun violence since it was enacted.

Even before the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 the numbers of gun violence committed with fully automatic firearms was virtually nihl as a percentage of crime. After the FOPA86, the price of a fully automatic firearm, if it is for sale, is easily in the $5000+ range. Please research the number of criminal acts done with legally owned fully automatic weapons. Then find the numbers prior to 1986. I bet the numbers are about the same, if not significantly lower. But then compare the supply of weapons. I bet the numbers don't match.

Speech: Absolute right, but you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre...unless, of course, there really is a fire.

Comparing "Fire" and the first amendment to the second amendment is a disingenuous argument. Do you have the right to watch porno? Do you have the right to religious worship? Do you have a right to setup a printing press or internet site and publish your thoughts?

The second amendment's specific thought is that the American people have a right to defend themselves from the government's tyranny. It was not for hunting or anything else.

Under Article One Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years. The idea was the each state was supposed to have their own army. If the states agreed with the federal government, they could dispatch their army (militia) to support the battle of the federal government.

Part of what Lincoln killed of the individual state's rights was when he issued orders to Virginia:

After the surrender of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, President Abraham Lincoln called up 75,000 militiamen to put down what he described as a rebellion against the authority of the federal government. On April 15, Lincoln's secretary of war sent a request to Virginia's governor for the state to furnish three regiments totaling 2,340 militiamen and officers. The following day Governor John Letcher refused to send troops "to subjugate the Southern States."

The surrender of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers radically changed the political situation in Virginia. The question that Virginians, including members of the convention, then faced was no longer whether secession was legal or wise or in the state's interest. The new question once the war began was which side to take, whether to fight with the United States against the Confederate states or with the Confederacy against the United States.

There are others, but you get the idea. -- Nick at January 21, 2013 11:02 AM

I really want your others. I hope they are as insightful as you have posted.

What mode of travel is your right? -- Radwaste at January 21, 2013 1:54 PM

If you are a citizen of the United States, you have the right to travel to any state or territory without restriction other than those imposed by legal controls (i.e. probation, parole, imminent closeness of a restraining order).

Now the question of a state accepting you as a citizen of that state is a different question. Until Lincoln and the corruption of the U.S. Constitution, the states were actually allowed to have citizenship requirements for the state.

Any more. I'm divided on the citizenship requirements. But the general idea is that I can move from New York to Florida, and am considered a citizen of the state on loose requirements.

"If you are a citizen of the United States, you have the right to travel to any state or territory without restriction other than those imposed by legal controls (i.e. probation, parole, imminent closeness of a restraining order)."

My question is more than that. It's a call to people like Mike Hunter, Orion, "Knowing", Patrick, Jeff Guinn, etc., to expose their position.

In some minds, hiring someone to take you somewhere means probable cause that you wish to kill or maim.

So the question is this: when do you have rights? Do you give them up when driving, flying, walking, boating? Does it make a difference whether you are a passenger in someone else's conveyance, for hire or not?

The short story is, of course, that no, you do NOT have rights. You can tell this by the long list of exceptions people trot out whenever something you want to do is mentioned. At any time, you may be compelled to identify yourself or be detained until some official decides what to do with you.

We even call prisoners "detainees" now, to fool people into thinking a jail cell is not where they are kept.

I find this disgusting. I wonder who else does.

To paraphrase the Great Heinlein, there are no rights, inalienable or otherwise. There is only power. The sea cares not a whit about your right to life when you are drowning. Likewise, apologists for the State care not for your "right" to travel unhindered.

At this point, the citizens have ceded their power to the State in exchange for "free shit" and the imaginary safety of the Govt. security blanket. And the individual states have ceded their power to the Federal Govt. in exchange for "free money" and a transfer of obligation and responsibility.