Fayetteville airport TSA questioned

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The major newspapers (e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe) are now running this AP-wire story.

    Unfortunately most of TSA will never realize how utterly stupid this makes them look. You can't rationalize with retards on a patriotic mission.
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

  3. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Congress needs to subpoena Pissy to explain this incident, after which Congress needs to relieve him of his position.
  4. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    I just sent off an e-mail to my Congressmen about this and would ask you to do the same with your Congresspeople. Later on this morning, I will call Peter King's office, Bennie Thompson's office as well as Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins to ask, nay, demand, that Congress subpoena Pissy to testify to them about this serious lapse.
  5. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    That's the wonderful thing about cultists. Kool Aide drinkers always sound like raving loons. All we need to do is keep the TSA talking while they keep the rest of the nation laughing.
    Lisa Simeone and Leave no trace like this.
  6. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Two cupcakes == OK, one cupcake == threat that must be confiscated.

    So, either we've got TSA employees who're utterly incompetent for missing the TWO cupcakes that presented twice the threat that a single cupcake would present, or TSA employees who just wanted to eat the cupcake... Either way, the TSA looks pretty stupid - not that they need any assistance in doing that.
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Nothing more needs be said.
    jtodd likes this.
  8. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Nobody has to demonstrate a need for a semi automatic rifle. We can have them because the second amendment says we can. We can't pick and choose which civil rights we support.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Machine guns, too!

    This was actually the meaning of U.S. v. Miller, much to the chagrin of gun-control advocates who cite the decision without actually comprehending it. Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a legal weapon protected under the Second Amendment because soft-lead projectiles were banned for military usage by international law. By analogy, fully automatic weapons (with fully jacketed projectiles, of course) are permitted.

    As for the Second Amendment being about hunting, U.S.v. Miller actually suggests that weapons with no legitimate military application (e.g. shotguns, .22 rifles) can be banned.
  10. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Shotguns have very definite military applications - especially when loaded with door-breaching rounds.

    The .22 has been used on various occasions for short-range/urban sniping. It's relatively quiet and highly accurate for that sort of thing...
  11. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    umm current military assault rifles use a 22 caliber bullet (from 36 gr to 75gr in weigh for .223 ala 5.56mm rounds), ever since they went away from the m1/14 as the primary weapon they dropped the caliber from 30 to 22 . Not to mention Olympic class rifles and pistols are .22 and some of those are deadly accurate platforms.

    The whole RNL vs FMJ is a topic on certain forums that would go into the 100s of pages by the measurebaters.

    Then again for a pesky squirrel a 22 is the perfect weapon as whipping out my AR chambered in 5.56 or 7.62 is a bit overkill, where as the silenced 22 does the job and I dont have to worry about over penetration.
  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I meant .22 rim fire, and I'm sure you knew that.

    The AR-15's cartridge normally is referred to as the .223 Remington (also sometimes misidentified as the 5.56 x 45 NATO, although the two are not fully interchangeable).
  13. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    I know mike was just yanking the chain a bit.

    Very true, seen it more then once including a brand new bushmaster last saturday it was a sad/scary event. A 5.56 chamber and shoot .223 rem as well but not the other way around, and thats before you toss wylde and armalite chambers in the mix.
  14. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Ah, so you're the elusive "well-regulated militia"?
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    "well regulated" in that context in the 1700's just mean "well trained (i.e. already know how to shoot) & equipped".
  16. Bungnoid

    Bungnoid Original Member

    I am sympathetic to your position, but your phrasing leads me to ask the following question: what does the Second Amendment say about us owning, for example, a fully automatic rifle, or a sawed-off shotgun?
  17. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    It doesn't say anything about it. I'm of the opinion that if our military is allowed to use it, or our local law enforcement is allowed to use it, then the citizenry should be allowed to use it for the simple fact that we - the citizens - should not be required to be lesser-armed than those from whom we might one day need to defend ourselves.
    barbell likes this.
  18. Leave no trace

    Leave no trace Original Member

    Not being an American, can I ask, is this the primary reason for the right to bear arms?
  19. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I could be wrong but during the formative years of this country individual citizens came together to form local militias. At the time a person had to supply their own gear.
  20. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    Some still do, and are better equipped.

    A armed society is a polite society!
    KrazyKat likes this.

Share This Page