Networking & Communications Blog

Networking & Communications

The Networking & Communications Blog is the place for conversation and discussion about power & apps, wireless technology, voice & internet, and network security as they relate to networking and communications fields. Here, you'll find everything from application ideas, to news and industry trends, to hot topics and cutting edge innovations.

Previous in Blog: Should you fear the proliferation of genetically modified crops?   Next in Blog: Should Offshore Drilling for Oil and Natural Gas be Curtailed?
Close
Close
Close
57 comments

Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

Posted April 28, 2010 7:45 AM

Full-body scanners have discovered drugs in quantities smaller than a tea bag, as well as concealed knives and razors. Authorities say the security devices can discover contraband on parts of the body that aren't fully searched in pat-downs. And security agencies claim they search only for prohibited items — not illegal substances. But if they find illegal items, they do call in local law enforcement. So the searches spill over into non-security areas. Does this constitute the unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the Constitution?

The preceding article is a "sneak peek" from Networking & Communications, a newsletter from GlobalSpec. To stay up-to-date and informed on industry trends, products, and technologies, subscribe to Networking & Communications today.

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22640
Good Answers: 409
#1

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/28/2010 10:09 AM

A friend of mine, who was female and was very well endowed. When security was beefed up, after 9/11.

When she when through the airport, she was picked out more often for closer inspection then ever before or anybody else on the flight for that matter.

Some of the security inspectors were pervs who seek out cheap thrills.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancleave, Ms about 30 miles inland from Biloxi and the coast
Posts: 3198
Good Answers: 105
#2

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/28/2010 9:20 PM

People hide behind the Constitution to conduct illegal acts. Anything that is illegal should be reported to the authorities regardless of how it is obtained. There are too many loopholes in the laws. All this causes bad people to get away with breaking the law, costing the public a lot of tax money to bring down law breakers down the line. Catch them at the airport and save us some money.

__________________
Mr.Ron from South Ms.
Reply
4
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Knoxville, Tn
Posts: 141
Good Answers: 3
#3

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/28/2010 10:58 PM

"Does this constitute the unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the Constitution?"

No. When you decide to take this form of transportation with groups of people you also agree to the rules involved. If you disagree, find some other way of getting there.

__________________
Analogies are like something else.
Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Anonymous Poster
#54
In reply to #3

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

11/04/2010 12:33 AM

So, you are saying that we voluntarily give up our Fourth Amendment rights when we buy a plane ticket? I have never seen that written on any ticket I have ever purchased in my 47 years, nor have I ever signed such a waiver.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#4

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 7:57 AM

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment applies to the government entities only not private organizations. Though the search at airports maybe mandated by law to protect the welfare of the citizens using air travel, airport security is a private organization. The security officers are private citizens acting in the interest of the airlines to secure the planes and Airline customers from harm. What they find they do not have to report. Then they can be held accountable as an accomplice in the crime.

What is to say that the use of the drugs after the security search would not lead to someone to go berserk on the plane. Would this not be a security concern that might affect the welfare of those on board an airplane or the airplane?

The law is there to as a right of the people from forced search and seizures of themselves and property. No one forces you to choose air travel. You make that choice. So you are all so making the choice in the search.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#5
In reply to #4

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 9:47 AM

"Though the search at airports maybe mandated by law to protect the welfare of the citizens using air travel, airport security is a private organization..."

I'm sorry, but this statement is wrong in oh so many ways. Anyone, whether by direct employment or by contractual agreement, who is operating under a mandate of the gov't (federal, state, or local) is a duly authorized agent of that authority, not a private citizen. As such, they are subject to the US Constitution (or state), and, as such an agent, must take an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution.

And, no, my right "to be secure in their persons" does not stop when I cross my property line. It applies everywhere, Equally, in all the sovereign territory of the United States of America. There are no "the Feds can do whatever they want with impunity" zones.

I sure do get tired of people playing fast and loose with our Constitution (including our own Congress. Maybe if more people read Adams, Jefferson, et al, they'd have more respect for the underpinnings of our fragile democratic republic.

Hooker <--- life long student of our Founding Fathers

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#9
In reply to #5

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 1:13 PM

After looking at your statement and looking At TSA your right they are government employees. They do not have the right to force you to the search before you go through a scanner. You do give them probable cause if they see something in the scanners which they feel is suspicious. You all so give them them probable cause if you approach the scanners then back away.

Each person is making a choice when they travel by public transportation. You know that you will be scanned and search before getting on an airplane. So you do not have to travel that way.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#10
In reply to #9

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 1:57 PM

So I choose not to fly commercially...

And I haven't flown commercially for over 10 years now. I have absolutely no patience for putting up with airport security.

Besides, the Virginia mountains are prettier on a motorcycle than from an airplane.

Hooker

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#14
In reply to #10

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/30/2010 10:02 AM

I will agree pretty hard to see any beauty in the land looking down from 30 thousand feet.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - Old Salt Hobbies - CNC - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rosedale, Maryland USA
Posts: 5198
Good Answers: 266
#27
In reply to #14

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 8:07 AM

This is an administration search being done to all persons that wish to use air travel. The conditions need to have the government impose a administrate search must have just cause. 911 gave them that. You are consenting to the search and any seizure of unlawful items when you step into the scanners or place your bags onto the table for inspection.

You do not have to do either one just walk away. You will not be allowed to board to fly though with out doing so. Even if they see something in the scanner that is questionable you can walk away and not permit a hands on search. It is at this time your Forth Amendment rights come in to play. What they have seen is still undetermined. They are using educated guess as to what it is. If you refuse a farther search and are forced to it. They then violate your Forth Amendment. Even if they take your drivers license or passport and will not return them until you consent to the search that is considered force.

__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty, pristine body but rather to come sliding in sideways, all used up and exclaiming, "Wow, what a ride!"
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#7
In reply to #4

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 10:22 AM

uh, that used to be the case, but since 911 has not been, at least not in the US. airport security is administered by the TSA which is a branch of the department of homeland security.

But the simple fact is that even the theta wave body scanners can be defeated if someone really knows what they are doing. I was speaking to Congressman Culberson just a couple of weeks ago and outlined how someone could smuggle nearly a kilo of commercial plastic explosives onto an aircraft and pass through both a body scanner as well as an x-ray without triggering any alarms. Frankly I think I scared the man. I know I am scared.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#57
In reply to #4

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

11/04/2010 7:18 PM

If you don't let them search you then they don't have to let you on the plane and your refusal to a search can give them probable cause to be concerned for the welfare of the other passengers.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#6

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 9:54 AM

When you purchase plane ticket you are giving implied consent to the searches conducted in order to board that plane.

Opererative words here "Implied Consent."

Same thing applies when you cross the boarder into another state "You are giving Implied Consent" to the laws of that state.

"Implied Consent"

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2454
Good Answers: 60
#8

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 11:04 AM

I suppose the Answer to your question should be

In todays current environment is it acceptable to be blown out of the sky, Or is it acceptable for the authorities to have the equipment and be able to use said equipment to prevent us from being blown out of the sky.

If it were not for a few the majority would not need these devices.

But until all humans of all races and beliefs can live in harmony, Then the answer is YES it is acceptable.

Simple choice really 1 be blown out of sky ?

2 not to be blown out of sky ? Hmmm let me think about that one. ? DOH !

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#25
In reply to #8

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 12:44 AM

Very poor reasoning displayed here - the others got this right. Understandable coming from a Brit who doesn't live under the US Constitution - hey our own regime doesn't live by it, so no personal criticism involved here, just the facts, ma'am.

The right to be secure in our own persons, absent a warrant based on probable cause, is absolute. It is not compromised by some perceived risk that supersedes that right. The reason the searches are acceptable is what several posters have stated: the search is a condition of boarding that airplane, or entering that military base, or any number of restricted areas. If I object to the searches, I simply avoid that place.

Personally, I no longer fly if I can get there by car in under two days. I choose not to be poked, prodded and treated and herded like cattle. But that's just me - when I do have to fly, I see herds of people who seem to have no problem lining up and following orders.

I think the conditioning is not accidental, but again, that's just my personal paranoia.

emc_c

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3499
Good Answers: 144
#11

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 4:03 PM

Using the full body scanner to look for weapons, explosives or other hazard to the passengers and crew, is not a violation of the 4th amendment. These are legitimate reasons for scanning or other searches prior to boarding a plane, in effect, by the probable cause that unknown persons have the intent to smuggle aboard weapons for terrorist attacks, the "warrant" is for the particular place (airport security/boarding) and particular things to be seized (weapons) from any person boarding (person unknown, or in effect, every person boarding the plane).

However, if the security should happen on personal items such as drugs in the course of this search, can it be prosecuted? The "warrant" is supposed to specify the things to be seized, and in this case it is weapons, not drugs. The argument that someone might take drugs and go berserk on the flight is not convincing. In fact there is no warrant to search for drugs, so if they seize drugs then I think it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. That's what I would expect a lawyer to argue if this went to court.

__________________
incus opella
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Popular Science - Paleontology - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Genetics - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Nevernever as much as possible, Earth when I have no choice.
Posts: 665
Good Answers: 11
#12

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/29/2010 10:48 PM

What is the point of protesting? We as citizens have already given up so many of our Constitutional Rights, (yes, I capitalized both words), that we might as well give them all up. At the rate we're going we will have to anyway.

It is only a matter of time, probably in our lifetime, that George Orwell's blueprint for social order will be a reality.

Read "The Coming American Dictatorship" by John Silveria of "Backwoods Home Magazine", for a further insight.

This is not the country we inherited and our descendants will not forgive us for it.

We have the right to choose another form of transportation, but our elected officials (all of them, not just federal) do NOT have the right to play whatever games they wish with the Constitution and say it is "for our safety",

Benjamin Franklin said it best. "Those who choose safety over liberty, deserve neither,"

Every day we lose a little more liberty to gain a little more safety, and folks, it isn't working. Our world gets a little more dangerous every day. I, for one, will not live in fear. When the wolves come to my door, be they alleged terrorists, common trash criminals or even government officials "just trying to protect me", one of us is not walking away.

Until all those who would steal what is ours by right, fear trying it we aren't safe or free.

Vote every single incumbent out and let's start fresh. We do it enough times they will get the message.

Dragon

__________________
Ignorance is the beginning of knowledge. Heresy is the beginning of wisdom. The ignorant heretic is the wisest of all.
Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#15
In reply to #12

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/30/2010 4:05 PM

Thanks for the lead to "The Coming American Dictatorship". It's chilling, especially considering that it was written in late 2000. I'm sure back then it was considered pure radical conspiracy stuff. It appears to have much more relevance today.

Hooker

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Popular Science - Paleontology - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Genetics - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Nevernever as much as possible, Earth when I have no choice.
Posts: 665
Good Answers: 11
#16
In reply to #15

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 12:48 AM

No Problem. "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." .... and a good stock of firearms.

Regards Dragon

__________________
Ignorance is the beginning of knowledge. Heresy is the beginning of wisdom. The ignorant heretic is the wisest of all.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#13

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

04/30/2010 7:52 AM

Frankly I think we'd all be safer if CHL holders were allowed to carry onboard.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#17

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 2:59 AM

How about this? Amend the Constitution to require that all men over the age of 21 shall be armed at all times, and that all women shall have the right to carry a concealed weapon. There is nothing more frightening to a criminal than the possibility of facing an armed citizen, which is why crime rates have plummeted in every single state which has passed a "Shall Issue" concealed carry permit law. The converse is why cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, etc (where getting a concealed carry permit requires an act of God) have the highest violent crime rates in the country, if not the world.

But, you say, a bullet could punch right through the skin of an airplane! Simple solution. Simply mandate that weapons aboard aircraft shall be loaded with light-weight nylon bullets. Not a lot of momentum, but utterly effective against human targets at the sort of ranges that you encounter aboard any aircraft.

Robert A. Heinlein pointed out decades ago that an armed society is a polite society. He was right. (This has a lot to do with why I moved to Wyoming.) Can you imagine terrorists deciding to board a plane, knowing that the the entire passenger compliment was armed and very likely to shot back?

__________________
DrMoose
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3499
Good Answers: 144
#18
In reply to #17

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 8:30 AM

Dr. Moose:

Think about the feasibility and consequences of such a law.

1) Travel is an international matter, and the general codes of security and behavior are agreed on that basis. Perhaps for domestic flights in the US, all passengers should be armed with nylon bullet weapons as they board the plane, expecting to duke it out all the way to their destination. Paintball Air USA? Wahoo. Like to see how long that stays in business, and enjoy your flight.

2) Gender-specific laws? You suggest a law that men must be armed, women may be armed, and persons under 21 may not be armed. Bottom line, in a society with respect for the equality of men and women, your laws would have to be agreed to by both male and female voters.

Consequences: The point of the full body scanning etc etc is because there are people who sneak aboard intending harm and actively seek opportunities for the same. How would your laws play out for them? The way I see it, your gender-bent laws put a target on the back of everyone under 21 as well as females, as the probable hostage to take. Secondly your law would put weapons in the hands of everyone male, regardless of their aim, good judgement, and self-control. Chances of the hostage being harmed go up dramatically in these circumstances. All this law would do is reduce the chances of a male being chosen as a hostage to zero. Feel safer?

If nylon bullets are the answer to on-flight security, then let the airlines employ highly trained, armed personnel to maintain security. Whether male or female, as long as they meet the training requirements and criteria, same as for flight attendants.

Or, maybe this is one job where equal opportunity legislation would be a bonus for society, showing preference to female applicants until gender distribution is 50-50. Would we be safer as a society, if more women were recruited to this sort of position, because it reduces the target on women's back?

__________________
incus opella
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#19
In reply to #18

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 10:13 AM

In fact sir, I have thought long and hard about the consequences of such things, and I believe can demonstrate convincingly that I am right.

The first part of your first point, I have to give you. Very few countries respect the right to keep and bear arms, and when an American goes to another country, we are obligated to respect their laws and customs. This is something of a problem in this context, considering that a terrorist intending harm to the US is most likely to board an aircraft in a foreign country, though not always, as 911 demonstrated.

Point one part two however suggests to me that you watched too many shoot-em-up westerns in your youth. This is exactly the argument which the gun control lobbies used to try to block the nation's first Shall Issue concealed carry permit law in Florida in 1987, screaming that there would be blood running in the streets. However, Florida did pass that law, and exactly the opposite happened. Violent crime rates plummeted, from the first day that the law was passed. And this pattern has repeated itself in every single state that has passed a Shall Issue law, quite without fail.

As of today, 37 states have Shall Issue CCW permit laws, and three states do not even require permits. Two states will not issue a CCW permit, period, and 8 others may issue with varying degrees of improbability. It is a fact, born out by FBI and National Crime Center statistics, that these 40 states have much lower crime rates now than they did when CCW permits were more restricted. It is also a fact that the cities and states where gun control laws are strictest, such as New York City, Washington DC, California (especially LA and San Diego) have much higher violent crime rates. And please, do not take my word for it. These statistics are published every year. Read them for yourself.

Furthermore, are you honestly going to try to suggest that a handful of terrorists or criminals are going to be able to take hostages when they are looking down the muzzles of dozens of handguns and shoulder-arms with angry citizens behind them? Far more likely that they shall sit meekly in their seats and hope not to be noticed. Think about it. Terrorists always hit soft targets. Ever wonder why?

Point two. Yes by God, gender specific laws. Have you ever heard of chivalry? I know, it's somewhat out of fashion these days, which I suspect has something to do with the decline of western civilization.

But consider this. For the overwhelming majority of human history, it was automatically assumed that it was incumbent upon men to protect women and children. All men, and all women and children. And this for good and logical reason. For the human species to survive, women must bear and rear children. To be able to do this, men must provide for and protect women and children. These are very simple and incontrovertible facts. A nation, a race, a people, can lose a huge percentage of it's adult males, and it's women can close ranks around the survivors and replace the damage in a generation. But, if we lose the women, it's all over! Period, end of story, fini.

Now if you consider this attitude to be obsolete, you are somewhat in the majority, though this is not something to be proud of. What man is more debased than he who will not lift his hand do defend his woman and her children? Half a century ago, every man within earshot would rush to defend a woman's honor. But now? A woman can be raped on a pool table in a crowded pub and nobody does anything!

The point is that if women and children are surrounded by armed men who will instantly leap to their defense, then they need not fear, for such men will rush in by the dozens at the sound of a scream. As opposed to such lovely places as NYC's Central Park, where an evening stroll is worth your life.

You speak of consequences without understanding. You assume the point of view of one who expects to be guarded and protected, rather than one who expects to guard and defend. Security is not brought about by police and guards. I served as a police officer for three years in the Navy, and the simple truth is this. Police officers cannot be everywhere. Ever heard the saying "there's never a cop around when you need one"? Furthermore and as with anyone else, police officers can be subverted, bought, corrupted. Thus the term, "inside job".

As the statistics have demonstrated, crime rates go down when there are armed men on the streets. Criminals fear the armed citizen. And on the whole, people are responsible and decent. Otherwise the streets of the 40 states would be running with blood.

So, let me speak the heart of the matter. I am a man. A professional military man, a warrior. I have born arms in the service of my country and as a civilian, both before and after my military service. I know that security, like freedom, rests with me. I was raised up on the concept that any woman or child who is in my presence is under my protection, I believe it to this day, and I will cheerfully expend my life in this cause if needs must. Though please believe that I am far more likely to expend the life of the bad guy who violates these rules.

I am ashamed of the males of my nation that have forsaken these concepts, for there is more to being a man than simply being born male.

Take this or leave it. But, in the company of heroes, I know where I stand.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#20
In reply to #19

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 10:39 AM

Oh, and one last point. Security, like freedom, is not legislated. It is won, by men who are willing to stake their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3499
Good Answers: 144
#21
In reply to #20

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 11:13 AM

Once again the gender bias! 2010: Please concede: "It is won, by men and women who are willing to stake their lives...etc"

__________________
incus opella
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#22
In reply to #21

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 11:35 AM

I will concede nothing. The vast majority of fighters down through history, both of this nation and the world, have been men, and that for the very reason I cited in my previous post.

Now, I've known many a tough old mom or grandmother that I'd far rather have at my back in a fight than so many of the males of this generation. And I absolutely agree that there were some extraordinary women who fought alongside their men during the revolutionary war, as well as every other conflict in this nation's history. I should be very proud to kneel at the feet of any one of these women. One knee, facing outward, with a rifle in my hands.

By the way, are you male or female?

__________________
DrMoose
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3499
Good Answers: 144
#23
In reply to #22

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/01/2010 11:54 AM

"The vast majority of fighters... have been men" Really. Is this a good reason to insult the women who fight to protect democracy side by side with the men?

I am not a military man, but I did once face death on the high seas in service to my country as a civilian interpreter in a military engagement. I do not have firearms training: I was not armed. There was a woman I worked closely with among the armed personnel on our ship, and I would gladly put myself under her protection in any situation of the kind. She was a warrior first class, if you like those terms.

The idea that women's role is to bear children not arms is obsolete. The same arguments are used by the Taliban to deny women education and to treat them as possessions and slaves of men. You cannot go safely down the road of biological determinism: it always arrives at the same destination.

__________________
incus opella
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#24
In reply to #23

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/02/2010 11:56 PM

I take note that you refuse to debate the real issues I have raised, but rather take issue on a point of rampant feminism. Odd that, considering that you are male. Please believe that any woman who takes offense at my words is more than welcome to take me to task on the matter, and it's been my experience that our ladies are quite capable of defending themselves within this context. So do please quit trying to change the subject.

So, firstly, to suggest that motherhood is obsolete is preposterous. If women stop bearing babies, then we shall fade away as a nation, and quite possibly as a species. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the decline of motherhood in this country, and the rise in juvenile delinquency, as well as the failure of our schools. Do check the time-line yourself, though I expect that you will deliberately refuse to see the point.

Secondly, I find your willingness to hide behind a woman's skirts telling. But, it has also been my experience that my sisters in arms also prefer strong men, who will stand up for them.

Lastly, I find your insinuation that this kind of attitude leads directly to the brutal oppression of women to be offensive. This country operated under these rules, and the concepts behind them, for nearly two centuries, and women where freer here than any other country in the world.

The point for me is that I love, revere and respect women. Furthermore, I have no difficulty cooking, cleaning or washing dishes. I am not a male chauvinist pig, but simply a gentleman of the old school. And I am not, never have been, and absolutely refuse to be politically correct.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3499
Good Answers: 144
#26
In reply to #24

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 7:39 AM

Dr. Moose:

I have recently wondered, on account of comments in other threads, whether women are really welcomed and treated as equals in this forum. That is why I questioned your gender bias: I think remarks like yours would discourage women from being part of this forum.

Your refusal to concede that women also stake their lives for freedom belies your claim of "chivalry". My comments, not yours, defend women's honor. You object to my raising the issue, saying 'our ladies are quite capable of defending themselves within this context'. I think women should not have to defend themselves in this forum, we should keep it gender neutral, or show respect for women's equal rights and contribution to security and freedom, in our remarks.

You say women were freer in your country for nearly two centuries, when for most of those two centuries they did not even have the right to vote. I concede that they were free enough to fight for their rights and eventually obtain it. You are right that by comparison, the Taliban are so brutal that they murder women and even schoolgirls for attempting to exercise basic freedoms. However there have always been men in every country who take advantage of inequalities in the law, to justify assaults on women.

Think about the fact that this is an international forum. Imagine an Afghani woman, an engineer or one who aspires to it, and who puts her life in jeopardy by following that path. How would she read your insistence that men and not women, stake their lives for security and freedom. Did you think this hypothetical woman should speak up for herself, and I should say nothing in her defense, nor show respect for women who also manifestly serve the cause of freedom as soldiers and police?

Last point, I have no objection to chivalry, I am willing to accept and respect you as a gentleman of the old school, and my comments are not intended to offend you personally or create animosity between us. I appreciate the technical knowledge you bring to this forum, and I believe you are a rational man on the basis of your technical contributions. A rational and chivalrous man should also be able to refine his views and improve on them.

I would be very satisfied if you would restate your comment #20 to acknowledge women as well as men stake their lives, so that the women who do so are not offended by your words.

__________________
incus opella
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Popular Science - Paleontology - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Genetics - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Nevernever as much as possible, Earth when I have no choice.
Posts: 665
Good Answers: 11
#32
In reply to #19

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 9:06 PM

Hear, hear, Dr. Moose!! I whole-heartedly agree. Being former military, and current owner of CCW permit, I feel much less concern about "terrorists" or simple thuggery. According to the D.O.J. own statistics, the mere presence of a firearm, when displayed, halts two and a half million violent acts per year in the United States.

Something to consider for those who have had that right taken away by their Governments.

Regards Dragon

__________________
Ignorance is the beginning of knowledge. Heresy is the beginning of wisdom. The ignorant heretic is the wisest of all.
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#56
In reply to #32

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

11/04/2010 12:42 AM

And that is the principle purpose of the Second Amendment: an armed citizenry is safe, including from their own government.

BTW: I own no firearms, nor ever have. But it's nice to know I can if I wish to, and it is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#34
In reply to #19

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 10:03 AM

I question your research and statistics. And so do many other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_Efficacy_of_Concealed_Carry

Research on the Efficacy of Concealed Carry

In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.[30] However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.[31]

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime.

Yale Law Professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[32]

An article by Moody and Marvel uses a more extensive data set and projects effects beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.[33]

This empirical back-and-forth may well indicate that the data is too incomplete, ambiguous, and crude to establish the effect of conceal-carry on crime.[34] For further discussion, also see Moody and Marvel's and Ayres and Donohue's 2009 articles in Econ Journal Watch.[35][36]

The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.[37] On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."[38]

In 2009, Public Health Law Research[39], an independent organization, published an evidence summary concluding there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "Shall-Issue" laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime. [40]

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center documents that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases).[41]

In 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justifiable homicides (i.e., self-defense killings).[42] In 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.[43] However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide stat does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.[44][45]

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#44
In reply to #34

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 8:35 PM

I might point out that it is the Ivy League establishment in this country which is leading the fight to disarm us all. Possibly because they lack the testicular fortitude to carry firearms? Thus I consider their numbers suspect, because of their hidden agenda. Furthermore, the United Nations has never made any secret of it's desire to disarm the citizens of the entire world. Thus, their statistics must be regarded with suspicion as well.

Now, you may reasonably argue that any numbers which favor firearms ownership and concealed carry must be regarded with suspicion as well. I will not argue the point. I shall simply observe the lessons of history, and I will never surrender my weapons so long as I am breathing.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#28
In reply to #17

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 9:49 AM

"An armed society is a polite society" Robert Anson Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon (1942)

This concept is further proven in a dictatorial state. The subjects are polite to the dictator (and his cronies) because the dictator generally has all the "guns" (read that as the ability to forcibly remove impolite subjects from public view with impunity).

There is nothing that scares our current federal officials more than an armed citizenry potentially bent on preserving or restoring our God given rights, as well as keeping those private citizens who would impose their will by force in their hidey holes.

Hooker

PS - has Wyoming filled up with patriots yet or is there room for more? I'm looking for a safe place to retire.

Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#31
In reply to #28

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 7:49 PM

Always room for one more patriot.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#29
In reply to #17

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 10:00 AM

Aren't we missing a major point in this discussion? Its not will an armed population reduce crime or not the question should be; Why is the crime rate in the U.S.A. so high to begin with? No other "civilized" country has such high crime rates, especially violent crime, and their citizens don't have to carry guns to discourage the criminals. Heck in some of those countries the police don't even have to carry guns.

Your solution I fear only treats the symptoms not the cause.

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#30
In reply to #29

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/03/2010 10:53 AM

I could be wrong and I'm not going to spend time looking it up but if I remember the statistics correctly, the vast majority of arrests and incarcerations in the US are based on the drug laws, and are, for the most part, non-violent. Most other countries either have relaxed drug laws, controlled drug distribution or do not pursue minor drug users.

If you look beyond the drug related incidents, I don't believe our crime rates are very different from the Europeans, and, in fact, violent crime rates have fallen significantly in recent years.

Hooker

PS - Even the British have quick response armed backup squads for their traditionally unarmed Bobbies nowadays.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#33
In reply to #30

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 9:51 AM

I took the time.

North America >

United States > Crime


View full size

AMERICAN CRIME STATS:

Top Stats

All Stats

View this page with:Just Stats

Sources

Definitions

Both

Assault victims

1.2%[11th of 20]

Car thefts

1,246,096[1st of 46]

Drug offences

560.1 per 100,000 people[4th of 46]

Executions

42 executions[5th of 22]

Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms

39.5604[7th of 32]

Illicit drugs
world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana; major consumer of ecstasy and Mexican methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center

Murders

16,204[2nd of 49]

Murders with firearms

9,369[1st of 36]

Perception of safety > Walking in dark

82%[2nd of 15]

Police

941,139[1st of 47]

Prisoners

2,019,234 prisoners[1st of 168]

Prisoners > Per capita

715 per 100,000 people[1st of 164]

Rape victims

0.4%[13th of 20]

Rapes

95,136[1st of 50]

Robberies

420,637[2nd of 47]

Software piracy rate

20%[107th of 107]

Suicide rates in ages 15-24

13.7 per 100,000 people[7th of 17]

Suicide rates in ages 25-34

15.3 per 100,000 people[10th of 17]

Total crime victims

21.1%[15th of 20]

Total crimes

11,877,218[1st of 50]

... View all Crime stats

SOURCES: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin; The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); Amnesty International; Wikipedia: Gun violence ; All CIA World Factbooks 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008; UN International Crime Victims' Survey; The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); International Centre for Prison Studies - World Prison Brief; Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study; GECD Society at a Glance 2001, Statistical Annex Table D3

ALTERNATIVE NAMES: United States, United States of America, usa, America, The United States, u.s.

Interesting facts on American Crime

Related links:

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#35
In reply to #33

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 10:12 AM

Many of these crimes can also be tied back to drug use, and our virtually non-existant border with mexico is rife with the drug smugglling trade. drugs are far more accessible here than in europe as a result.

A wise man once explained why the gun was civilization. It would serve you in good stead to read it. In the US, when concealed carry laws are being passed, pundits on the gun control side always claim that "blood will run in the streets" if the law is passed, but ironically every single time, crime rates have gone down as a direct result of criminals being afraid of being out gunned by their would be victims. Gun laws after all are only followed by those who are law abiding. Criminals, being criminals, do not follow the law and prefer their victims to not be able to defend themselves. That is why they always go to schools and malls, people are not allowed to carry their weapons there so they know they will be the only ones armed and they can do their killing undisturbed. It is not a coincidence that Chicago, New York, LA, and Washington DC have such high crime rates, none of them allow their residents to have the means to fight back. That emboldens the criminals.

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#36
In reply to #35

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 10:28 AM

I beg to differ. I have posted the stats, I have posted the experts opinion of your data. The idea that guns promote civility is just ludicris to me. The citizens of every other civilized country country seem to get along pretty well without needing a gun in their pocket.

Take just one sentance from you so called justification, "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force." This is just not true, if my intention was to rob you then what happens is simple. I shoot you dead first, without out so much as a "stick-em-up" and then I take your wallet from your cold corpse. I'm not going to try and reason your wallet away from you.

Anyway I have had this discussion many times before and the gun nuts will not read the statistics, they will not acknowledge the studies. Keep your guns, continue killing each other at the same rate as if a small civil war was going on if you like. Just please don't try to pass it off as a logically conceived plan of action to deal with an out of control crime rate.

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#38
In reply to #36

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 10:41 AM

That is because your "statistics" have consistently been shown to be BS coming out of the Brady Camp.

And no, if you were a halfway intelligent robber (a contradiction in terms I know) you would NOT simply just shoot first without warning because it would draw unwanted attention to you. Secondly a large part of CHL training is how to recognize threats in time to avoid them and how to de-escalate situations, because under the law, the CHL holder has the duty to try to avoid confrontations whenever possible.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#39
In reply to #38

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 11:00 AM

Could you show me where the quoted statistics "have consistently been shown to be BS coming out of the Brady Camp" please?

I'm not a "halfway intelligent robber" I'm a heroin addict desperate for a fix and I'm pretty sure you have a gun and seeing I don't want to reason with you about who needs your money more I'm going to shoot you first. Hell I see it as self defense.

Now however if you have a duty "to avoid confrontations whenever possible" what are doing doing outside your house on the dangerous streets?

You guys make this too easy.

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#40
In reply to #39

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 11:06 AM

Speaking of easy:

"Now however if you have a duty "to avoid confrontations whenever possible" what are doing doing outside your house on the dangerous streets?"

Read your signature line.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Hooker

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#41
In reply to #39

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 11:37 AM

Your need to feed your heroin addiction does not make it self defense, and how do you know I'm armed? the gun is not visible until I draw it. And I am avoiding getting close to you because you are obviously a heroin addict (kinda hard to hide the fact.) obviously jonesing for a fix. And besides, since I am trying to avoid you I am keeping my distance, and since you are shaking you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. you might fire first, but you are unlikely to incapacitate me if you even hit me, because of the distance and your physical state, I however, being both trained, and practiced at shooting will probably give you the Mozambique treatment for your addition and do the world a favor in the process.

The Mozambique treatment is two shots to the center of mass followed by one to the head. It is virtually 100% effective at curing addictions when done properly.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#42
In reply to #35

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 7:21 PM

Hear Hear!

__________________
DrMoose
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#37
In reply to #33

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 10:37 AM

Lots of flawed data in this chart vrs the source links:

Under murders, your chart says the US is 2nd of 49 but clicking on the link shows 5th of 83???? Other links show similar discrepancies.

Also, where the hell is China? They have arguably the highest murder rate in the world, not even including state sanctioned murder/execution.

Also, the per capita rates show a more realistic figure; US is 24th @ 0.042802 per 1,000 people.

Lastly, the charts cite UN data from 1998-2000. That's a bit dated, IMO.

Hooker

PS - I love how China's execution rate number 1 at 10X the US, with Muslim countries following close behind them. Seems that capital punishment may keep the general crime rate down???

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Anonymous Poster
#55
In reply to #17

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

11/04/2010 12:39 AM

Amen, Dr. Moose. That is why I am moving to Florida as soon as my kids graduate from college.

Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#43

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/04/2010 8:11 PM

I just knew I was going to be kicking off a firestorm after I posted my first remark.

Okay, all of the gun people to the right side.... No, lets say to the west side of the room, and all the anti-gun people to the east side of the room. Now, let us pose a proposition. The afore-mentioned armed junkie comes into the room with intent to mow people down, not for any particular reason but because his brain is miss-firing and it seems like a good idea to him at the time. So, what happens?

If all you unarmed guys are alone in the room, one of you might call the police, and you might all try to run, all the while absorbing bullets from a single, shaky bad guy. Would you have the courage to rush a shooter en-mass, in hopes that you could overwhelm him by sheer weight of numbers? I'd like to hope so, but your overall attitude argues against that kind of physical courage.

On the other hand, if us gun guys are alone in the room, Mr. Junkie will be brought to an abrupt halt before he can fire a third shot. Of course if all you anti-gunners where still in the room, fewer of us would shoot, since we'd have to insure that if we missed, would wouldn't hit one of you. But the bad guy would still go down.

This is the simple reality which all anti-gunners refuse to acknowledge. In any place where the law prohibits guns, only the bad guys carry guns. And historically, that has far too often included the so called authorities. Like it or not, when the bad guys carry guns, the good guys have to, or they have no recourse. And the bad guys always carry guns. If someone gets in your face with a gun, you can be armed and have a chance, or you can be unarmed and die. Or worse let those who look to you be injured or killed.

Now understand something. I have carried a firearm for most of my adult life. In all of those years, I never once had to draw it. I never went out spoiling for a fight, but I was always prepared to end one if I had to. And I was always unfailingly courteous and polite, since it was always my intent to avoid trouble, wherever and whenever possible.

But getting back to the original point. The the various governments have decreed certain rules which shall be obeyed IF one wishes to travel via commercial air, and they have the muscle (guns) to enforce these rules. I frankly find these rules offensive, and refuse to travel via commercial air. There is nowhere I need be be that quickly that I cannot drive my own car, enjoy the trip, and not have to worry about renting a vehicle when I get there. And I will not be disarmed in the process.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru
Canada - Member - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Posts: 629
Good Answers: 39
#45
In reply to #43

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/05/2010 11:39 AM

"Now understand something. I have carried a firearm for most of my adult life. In all of those years, I never once had to draw it. I never went out spoiling for a fight, but I was always prepared to end one if I had to. And I was always unfailingly courteous and polite, since it was always my intent to avoid trouble, wherever and whenever possible."

Now here is why we will never see eye to eye on this subject. I have never carried a gun in my life. I have never seen a gun pointed at another human being. I have never been threatened with a gun. I have never been robbed, my house has never been broken into, my car has never been stolen and the same can be said for most of my family, friends and aquaintances. I have lived my entire adult life in a major city of over 3 million people, Montreal so its not that I live in the boonies. There are less than ten cities in the U.S. larger than Montreal. This is my entire point, there is something else going on the U.S.A. that makes Americans want to shoot each other. THAT is what we should be looking for. Treat the problem not the symptom.

One good theory I heard was to look at the differences in our 2 countries history. When the U.S.A. "went west" they sent out the gunslingers and settlers first. The sheriffs and commerce came later. In Canada the west was tamed by companies first, and commerce works better in an ordered society so the police went with the companies. The settlers came later. But that is history, what is so different now that 2 countries, so closely linked in almost every way can be so different at their core?

__________________
All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#46
In reply to #45

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/05/2010 11:54 AM

"so closely linked in almost every way"

I disagree strongly here. Y'all are much more closely aligned to the European state socialism model than us freedom loving rowdies here in the US, especially in Quebec.

I would postulate that you are closely linked to Mother England and have legacy ties to France rooted in loyalty and, arguably, fealty to the crown(s). We (US) are rooted in rebellion and total freedom.

Just speculating

Hooker

Reply
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 149
#47
In reply to #45

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/05/2010 12:36 PM

You might find that the first time you or one of your loved ones are a victim of a violent crime your worldview might just change 180 degrees.

There is a joke about how to change the mind of an avowed pacifist, while it is intended to be humorous, it does have a small grain of truth.

First, as soon as the pacifist starts saying there is NEVER an excuse for violence, haul off and punch them as hard as you can in the nose. when they regain consiousness, they will naturally want to come off the floor and deck you, stop them and remind them that they just got through saying that there is never an excuse for violence, once you've got them nodding and agreeing again, punch them in the nose again. Lather rinse repeat until they come to realize that some people are uncivilized and just like beating the hell out of you and no amount of pacifism will protect you from them, you have to punch them before they punch you.

A pacifist is just a future gun owner that hasn't been robbed or raped yet.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Reply
Guru
Safety - Hazmat - New Member Safety - ESD - New Member Engineering Fields - Transportation Engineering - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Technical Fields - Procurement - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member Engineering Fields - Architectural Engineering - New Member Technical Fields - Marketing/Advertising - New Member Engineering Fields - Food Process Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mariposa Ca
Posts: 5804
Good Answers: 114
#48

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/08/2010 9:50 PM

Good thing this isn't a political discussion

Reply
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#49
In reply to #48

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/08/2010 10:24 PM

Actually, it was pretty much a political discussion from it's inception.

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
3
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#50
In reply to #49

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/09/2010 2:07 PM

I have the luxury as a model government to pick and choose whom to issue a Transcendian passport to. Hence I would choose to issue passports to people man or woman who will take up the responsibility and work of carrying weapons appropriate to their personalities and skills.

It is a lot of work to carry a weapon. Some people are simply not good for that sort of work. Guns are tools. Like most tools you do need to be trained in the proper use of the tool. Many people cut their thumbs off with table saws.

When women ask us for guns, we do ask if they know how to use a gun, since many simply have not been trained to use a firearm. In such cases we tend to recommend powerful pepperspray, and explain there are legal advantages should they ever use it, for legally all they have to prove is that they felt threatened, whether they really were or not.

Due to the work involved in carrying around a lethal weapon, for some I would only require that they carry pepperspray.

Now since my little model nation is a confederated system of uniformly safe and civilized airports, I am dependent on international law. The aspects of Maritime Law that allow for the Captains gun locker are the laws I look to for arming the Captain of the Ship, which is what an airliner is essentially. Hence I would expect under international law for it to be accepted that pilots carrying Transcendian passports, and working lawfully with the responsibility of their passengers lives in their hands, to be properly armed.

So then those carrying my passports would be assumed to be carrying either a lethal weapon, or a non lethal weapon as much as possible, within the boundaries of my little airport nation.

It is not as if being a gentleman means that you never have to fight, but it means you only fight for a good reason.

It is a drag that the drug war goes on and on in the US. Drug use is essentially a victimless crime, except if you get caught and become a victim of the government, or get shot by business rivals.

As a cultural thing that contributes to much of the violence in the US the drug war makes the Prohibition era look good, since it came to an end. I would likely have to install scanners at my airports, however I'd not be arresting people for carrying pot.

William James, the American Philosopher of Pragmatism wrote of the delicacy of Democracy, and I nod to Hooker for his acceptance of that. Dr. Moosie as an old school gentleman has contributed.

Certainly I wish that the world was different, and that there was no need to defend yourself, or yours with the use of force, but that is not the reality.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru
United States - Member - Member in Good Standing

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lafayette, CO
Posts: 652
Good Answers: 61
#51
In reply to #50

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/16/2010 4:09 PM

Good answer from me, old son.

Unfortunately, it is no longer politically correct to teach your children about guns and gun safety, as I was taught by my father, uncles, grandfathers, etc, and as I taught my children. Which is the why of your main point.

BTW, do I rate a Transcendia passport?

__________________
DrMoose
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2963
Good Answers: 93
#52
In reply to #51

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/16/2010 8:20 PM

I read somewhere today that an Airport Security Officer who had been repeatedly ribbed about the small size of his penis revealed to his co-workers by the Full-body Scanner, had lost it and attacked his co-workers.

I've had some misconceptions about life, and one was that after people graduated from High School they would more act like adults. Ignorant and rude behavior appalls me for I imagine a world and culture where good manners are so well inculcated into the society, that few actual laws are required. Such a society is so much dependent on education and internally hardwired ethics as to be a dreamers hobble in too much of the world.

You have to admit that Ben Franklin at least left us the Public Library System, and did have a life of the mind vision for the US. Course you also have to note he was a printer, and was secure financially due to the printing of money. Typically whatever sorts of things Ben Franklin endorsed, I defer to him.

I do need to reread the Federalist Papers. I used to spend a good deal of time reading law on the Yale Avalon Law Project. Significant readings available there are The International Space Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is good, though not so far really worth the paper it is written on.

Currently across the board we are in a time of what has been called Globalization. Urbanization has overtaken all since still, you have to be there, especially if picking it up and putting it down is all you are fit to do.

There is work that is both hard on the body, and on the mind, that is simply not respected enough. I appreciate Chicago for out there when they start killing people and blowing things up, its about work. Studs Terkel did some great work in that town, and last time I was there, there were college course on the TV.

Streeterville is interesting, though I have read two versions of the story, and one is Streeter is heroic, and in another he is a lowlife.

Legitimate nations control violence. Vices are to also be controlled. Sociologists are correct when they say you cannot legislate folkways. What this means is that all vices endemic to the human pursuit of happiness are stone cold stupid to make illegal as proved by the Prohibition era of the US.

Where the secular state becomes superior to the theocracy is in the fact that what is moral to one religion, may well be unethical. If we really confront rights, we must confront the equal rights of women. Men go out to war and kill on battlefield, in ditches, or back alleys for love and reason.

Women have the territory within them, and if they want, or need an abortion, no matter what my morality, or beliefs, or desires, I ethically must concede their right to kill what is inside of them, if they want. As a man, different from them, never really to face the choice myself in the way they do, I have no choice but to accede to their right.

I am way for privacy and say often that "Fame without money sucks." So far everyday I am hiding in the open, and glad I'm not very famous. You know you're famous when you have been cartooned. Somewhere there is a cartoon Kaplin did of me on CR4. Took him about 15 minutes to find my face on facebook, and put it on another body, and add a mullet. Normally I look like a gentleman. A mullet haircut is not my style. I do like Hawiian shirts though.

Where was I?

The Full-body Scanners have now a record of enabling childish behavior in that they have made pretty women more targets of the tech search, invasion of privacy, and caused a fist fight among staff who ridiculed a co-workers penis size.

Maybe I ought not put such a machine on the Transcendian purchase list if that's all its good for?

The corporatization of control of your freedoms is one of the trends in the US that mocks the government as any real trustworthy power. Forget about States Rights. Their nothing compared to the way "Private Property" gets to change the laws. Soon as the State says it is legal to carry your pistol many a bank puts on the door a sign saying it's not. What is legal either by state or federal law is often abrogated by corporations and towns. Insurance companies want everybody sitting down and not moving at all till they drop dead at a profit, so really they want everything illegal and invest in private prison stocks with the intent of putting everybody in jail.

Well by everybody, we mean regular people, not themselves.

A Mister Clock at Liberty Mutual once told me that he would reduce insurance premiums for sheetrock moving companies if they used exoskeletons like the HAL, for sheetrock delivery, since they had to pay out a lot for that, as disability from the work ran to 70 percent.

Your lowest Workman's Comp Policies are for the Clerk categories of employees. You simply aren't a real company if you don't carry insurance, and since the insurance companies run the world, and particularly the US, it is no wonder nothing is to be done. At least Loyds of London will insure mercenaries.

It is noted that Mr. Brown kept the UK out of the Euro. Last I knew the UK had abandoned the drug war a good while back specifically by giving addicts heroin and cocaine, though since pot isn't addictive, I don't think they give that away. Thought the point was to keep the Mob out.

Where was I?

Should I buy a Full Body Scanner or not? I think it would be a moneymaker if I bought one and put it in a Mall, and charged 10 bucks a pop for couples to go into and be photographed and XRayed, and get a framed picture to take home and hang on the wall, or carry with them when going to the airport for a ride. Yep, they are delightful, I want one to play with!

Oh yeah, but I forgot, they are XRay machines. Damn, you're not supposed to expose yourself to a lot of X Rays for your personal health. As a Photobooth the warning label may not be good for business.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Member United States - Member - Army Vet in the aviation industry

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bridgewater, Va.
Posts: 2027
Good Answers: 112
#53
In reply to #51

Re: Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

05/17/2010 8:43 AM

Politically correct is dependent on your locale. Virginia just passed a law allowing the NRA Eddie Eagle program to be taught in elementary schools.

See HERE

'bout time, IMO. My Dad, a WWII vet, tossed me into the NRA and its shooting and gun safety programs when I was about 8 years old. And, no, he didn't give me a choice about it.

Hooker

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 57 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (4); Apothicus (6); artsmith (5); Dragonsfarm (3); DrMoose (11); Garthh (1); Hooker (9); Janissaries (2); ozzb (4); palinurus (1); peterg7lyq (1); phoenix911 (1); ronseto (1); Rorschach (6); Transcendian (2)

Previous in Blog: Should you fear the proliferation of genetically modified crops?   Next in Blog: Should Offshore Drilling for Oil and Natural Gas be Curtailed?
You might be interested in: Image Scanners, Pressure Scanners, Bar Code Scanners

Advertisement