Many of them are eager to turn schools into police states in the name of safety, too. Like getting kids used to being frisked and dodging cops on the way to math class is worth the slim chance that one of them might stop a slaughter.

I'm not standing meekly in line at the airport because the TSA is protecting me. I am doing it because I recognize that the airports and airlines have the right to make screening a part of the requirements for getting on an airline. I won't do it often, because I rarely have a need to fly, and I hope they go broke through people staying away in droves.
As far as my Second Amendment rights, boycottts can be pretty effective there too.

Isab:

Do you know of one airport or airline that has asked for TSA patdowns?

Dare I surmise that many of those leading the charge against any gun regulation are standing meekly in line at the airport, willingly giving up their rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the name of “safety” (Note: the TSA has not apprehended one terrorist.).

You may dare surmise, Ms. Cummings. May I surmise you consider the 4th Amendment somehow independent of (and more important than) the 2d? Neither of our surmisals appears to be based on more than snippiness, anyway.

The time has come to think about fundamental issues, whether you like it or not. If the people of the USA let their natural right of arms to be destroyed, which the government is forbidden to do by the 2nd Amendment, they will have taken down the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with it. Note that I comment in a "Free Speech Zone."

From below: "My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants."

Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution
June 5, 1788
"The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union."

I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.

Argument II: against the federal army
3.23
My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants. It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength-an army, and the militia of the states.

3.25
This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?

Dare I surmise that many of those leading the charge against any gun regulation are standing meekly in line at the airport

Karen can "surmise" it but she's full of shit.

That's all I can say to something that egregiously nonsensical.

Full. Of. Shit.

No matter how right she might be on the TSA anywhere else, she's full of it - shit - by saying something that ignorant.

I don't know of a single "political" gun owner who's not outraged - and outspoken - by the TSA/DHS.

I surmise she must have a serious sinus infection from that impacted manure.

It probably is making her a bit unreasonable.

There are some big advantages that the gun-rights groups have - organization, identification, association that might be what she's confused about. She might be confused that the gun-rights groups largely stick solely to gun-rights issues for both tactical and strategic purposes.

There might be confusion over the history.

Hell, she might not understand what "surmise" means.

I don't know.

But I do know that if she really thinks that those people fighting for gun rights are against her now, she's on the right path to isolation.

Radwaste wrote:
" Isab:

Do you know of one airport or airline that has asked for TSA patdowns?"

Define "asked"

Some airports have private security, but since most airports are owned and financed by the government, they have very little latitude. The FAA determines the rules under which they can operate.

By the way, the 4th Amendment applies to criminal searches, not administrative ones.
I personally prefer to fly Southwest. You still have to go through the TSA to get to your plane, but their prices are fair, and they don't play jack up the price on baggage, or changing your flight.

isab schreibe: "the 4th Amendment applies to criminal searches, not administrative ones".

If SCOTUS said that at some time, then 5 of them were traitors. Anyone know? It sounds like one of those questions that never gets cert.

Some airports have private security, but since most airports are owned and financed by the government, they have very little latitude.

So it's less "asked" and more "strong-armed." Kind of like how the local businesses in my old neighborhood "ask" for mafia protection.

are standing meekly in line at the airport, willingly giving up their rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the name of "safety"

Depressing, isn't it? When I flew to San Francisco last fall, I didn't see anyone dishing out scorn and contempt at the TSA thugs.

Some airports have private security, but since most airports are owned and financed by the government, they have very little latitude. The FAA determines the rules under which they can operate.

Not really, Isab. The FAA has some authority - but not a lot, and nothing to do with security. Most big airports are operated by *local* governments - several/many of which demanded to opt-out of the TSA "experiment", and then, suddenly, got back on board very quietly, IIRC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/airports-with-new-law-are-freer-to-split-from-tsa.html?_r=0

I can't find where they've yet been able to do it.

But it's not because of the FAA.

"The FAA has some authority - but not a lot, and nothing to do with security."

This is at odds with Patrick Smith's explanation of the Passenger Rights Act.

The pilot cannot determine when to fly, OR where to discharge passengers. The FAA requires her to follow the tower's instructions, and TSA prohibits letting a passenger out anywhere except at a gate.

"Define 'asked'".

Nice dodge.

The TSA was never needed. About 98% of the Patriot Act was bullshit.

But Ms. Cummings theories are total bullshit as well. The NRA has about 4 million members with more joining everyday. That is out of a population of about 310 million.

Tell me how many members there are in the 4th Amendment Protection Association? How about the 5th Amendment Protection Association?

Yes, their is Reason, IJ, FIRE, etc. but there is not really any Constitutional Rights Association.

The problem, even with internet access, is that the majority of the American population is in the low information voter category. Those that think and don't like what they see come to Amy's site, the NRA and the protect our rights organizations. That is maybe five percent of the population?

My sister still thinks that 9/11 was caused by the flights being early morning and the travelers didn't quite grasp what was going on. When I mentioned the sit down and shut up was the prevailing model for hijackings -- she outright rejected it. So even getting past that lack of history would be a hurdle.

Getting her to actively reject the TSA is probably impossible.

When Ms. Cummings or anyone else can create a Fourth Protection Association and have a 999 members, I'll gladly pay the dues and become member 0000001000.

It appears the majority will give up their guns.

Not without a fight, Jay. Since the "Sandy Hook Tragedy" in Connecticut, the legislators are now thinking they're going to impose a 50% tax on ammo, and require gun owners to get liability insurance. Here's a letter I wrote, with some help, to the congresscritters here:

Open letter to all Connecticut congresspersons:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding ANY new gun law legislation, please try to remember:

1. Criminals won't buy enough ammunition for the 50% sales tax to be a deterrent. They don’t care if it costs an extra quarter to kill someone.

2. Most of the people who buy large amounts of ammo are legal gun owners, so that they may practice and become more proficient (and safer) when using their weapons.

3. The 50% sales tax will not only hurt law-abiding gun owners, but businesses and organizations such as: gun ranges; skeet, trap, and sporting clay ranges; private gun and sporting clubs, and gun dealers.

4. Requiring liability insurance will accomplish nothing but provide for fatter wallets for the insurance companies’ CEOs, while punishing responsible gun owners who will probably never need to use it. Criminals who do the shooting certainly aren't going to buy insurance.

Please stop exploiting the children and families of the recent tragedy by using them as an excuse to stuff the state coffers and throw a bone to the insurance industry. There have been several other tragedies in this state since then, and firearms weren’t even involved in some of them. Imagine that!

I don’t understand how HB5268 will help solve anything. It is absolutely insulting to all law-abiding gun owners. While I understand that you feel the need for tighter gun laws, background checks, etc. I feel this is yet another attempt to capitalize on peoples’ emotional response to a senseless tragedy. This is nothing more than a way for the state to rake in money using that senseless tragedy as leverage. The honest, hard-working people of this state will not take this sitting down. We will assemble. We will protest and we will never forget the elected officials who stomp on the hands that feed them, as well as trample on their rights.

Please reconsider.

Best Regards (for now),

Flynne Bondolini

(not my real name, but I did sign my real name when I sent it to the local paper)

the legislators are now thinking they're going to impose a 50% tax on ammo,

Even funnier, Flynne.

Ammo is *right now* taxed at an additional 11%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

That "increase" would either drop that to almost nothing (due to sales loss), or totally subvert the tax to the General Fund (I've seen a couple variants proposed.)

So if they succeed in that, guess what gets shut down?

All those nice parks and conservation lands. Won't be enough money, minus the P-R infusion.

This has come close to happening a couple of times before - and state wildlife departments have/(had?) seen a huge jump in the federal outlay as more "action/tactical" shooting started taking off, with people buying and shooting hundreds of rounds on a regular basis.