TSA sexually assaults mother on Memorial Day

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MegaMind

 

No we have a system of government that provides for the rights associated with ownership of private property. Freedom to own property is so fundamental to the American way that the original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property."

To suggest that the Constitution should apply to you while on someone's private property is to suggest that America should be a police state where the government is all powerful and no one's rights of property are respected.

I am suggesting that our rights to unreasonable searches should not disappear because we are on public or private property. If your employer demanded that you submit to a pat down where they touch your crotch or you are fired I think you would have grounds for a law suit.

If you are on private property that is not yours cops still can't violate your right.

This is about saying that you consent to all this by flying. That you give up your rights when you buy a ticket and want to board the plane because it is private property. What I am saying is that this concept could be applied to all sorts of situations and places and THAT would be just like a police state.

TSA are not even a real government agency, they are stupid freaking civilians who have a power trip and ego issues.

I swear if it was not illegal to kill, more idiots would be dead.

reply to post by DerekJR321


Awesome post Derek. Thanks for posting that. Can't get any clearer can it? Their whole argument is based on it being private property and no right to fly. If that is not true then the 4th Amendment fully applies.

It is common knowledge that most victims of sexual abuse DO NOT LIKE to be touched, even superficially, by strangers!

That woman could get even more traumatized or psychologically damaged. That is so, so wrong.

Imagine this guy in the commercial for southwest airlines explaining the professional manner in which he will search your crotch if you choose to fly with southwest. I would expect an instant share price drop.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Vitchilo
This won't work. Here's why.

Sheeple will fly. Business will fly. Tourists will fly.

And even if they don't and the air liners go bankrupt, congress is gonna either BAILOUT THEM... or NATIONALIZE THEM.

I dont know where to place my bets then.

Flight boycott? Legislatures passing more laws covering the TSA? The disbanding of the TSA? Thoroughly molested individuals still blowing up/highjacking planes to prove the futility of it all?

None seem likely to happen or if they did happen the event would be twisted in a such a way as to come off as another loss for liberty.

At least I have to believe that once a "sheep" has been molested the sheep is no longer a sheep. Surely one cant complain about their treatment one day then walk right into that same treatment the next?

Ah, who am I kidding? Of course a sheep can. People are idiots.

edit on 2-6-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Makes you want to pull your hair out doesn't it thisguy?

Vitchilo: Starred and flagged again. People need to see this crap.

I don't care if some call that woman a "drama-mama" or not: we need this six times a day at every airport.

Southwest Airlines, you'll never see my rear-end on one of your planes again.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
TSA are not even a real government agency, they are stupid freaking civilians who have a power trip and ego issues.

I swear if it was not illegal to kill, more idiots would be dead.

Advisor, 100% with you.

Civility died in this country once dueling was outlawed. Before dueling was made a crime, a man could be called out in public, to defend his actions or his words with his ass and his life's blood.

People were much more polite then, and oh so careful.

reply to post by MegaMind


What I am saying is that you seem to be in favor of Constitutional rights being extended to private property and that if the government has the authority to do that then we would indeed have a police state.

Why are you a proponent of a police state?

Originally posted by includao
It is common knowledge that most victims of sexual abuse DO NOT LIKE to be touched, even superficially, by strangers!

That woman could get even more traumatized or psychologically damaged. That is so, so wrong.

Then they shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they may need to be patted down? No?

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MegaMind

 

What I am saying is that you seem to be in favor of Constitutional rights being extended to private property and that if the government has the authority to do that then we would indeed have a police state.

Why are you a proponent of a police state?

Government doesn't grant rights. My rights are mine and no government gave them to me. Get it? I am a free Man and by virtue of my existence I have rights. I don't give them up and no one can take them away. Government doesn't grant rights. The bill of rights are a limit on what government can do.

What you are saying is that my rights go away depending on where I am and what I am doing. I agree that private property owners have a right to say for example "you cannot bring firearms onto our property" "shirts and shoes required" and so on - makes perfect sense that is the right of the property owner. If I don't comply they have the right to make me leave or get the authorities out to make me leave.

What I am saying is a REAL simple concept. IF this "concept" as it is applied with the TSA were taken to extremes with private property then it could be done almost everywhere. TSA at malls, theaters, grocery stores, gas stations, proms, apartment complexes. You could have to have a pat down nearly everywhere you go. THAT WOULD effectively be a police state.

I'm not saying we suspend property rights of property owners. I am suggesting common sense. You know the way we have been doing it for the past 250 years without a problem. It worked pretty good. We were fine before the TSA. If the TSA went bye bye tomorrow we would be just fine.

Now don't ask me the same freaking question over and over again. Read. Comprehend. Like it. Don't Like it. Agree. Disagree. I don't care ...

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by includao
It is common knowledge that most victims of sexual abuse DO NOT LIKE to be touched, even superficially, by strangers!

That woman could get even more traumatized or psychologically damaged. That is so, so wrong.

Then they shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they may need to be patted down? No?

What are you saying? Don't fly? Opt to get irradiated by the scanning machines? Who exactly "put themselves in a situation" where a pat-down was required to travel? Did Americans vote on this? Nope. The federal government implemented this new rule on their own accord, without public consent.

"Put themselves in a situation" Gimme a friggin break

reply to post by MegaMind


I am well aware that the Constitution restricts governments from impeding upon our rights and that it does not grant them. I recently explained this to my god son and some folks while standing in front of the Constitution at the National Archives.

I will ask you any question I feel as often as I feel I should. After all it is my right to freedom of speech. And yes your rights end at my door step. I don't care if its the door to my home or my business you will conduct yourself in the manner I deem appropriate while on my property, you will not carry dangerous weapons, you will not speak in an offense or crude manner, or violate any other such rule or regulation I choose to impose. The government has no place coming in and telling me otherwise be it at work or at home and your "free man" "status" doesn't give you that right either. If I want to hire security guards to frisk you before you can enter that is my right and it is my right to deny entrance should you refuse the search.

There is simply no way that you can claim that the government should intrude upon private property without being a proponent of increased government control aka a police state.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MegaMind

 

I am well aware that the Constitution restricts governments from impeding upon our rights and that it does not grant them. I recently explained this to my god son and some folks while standing in front of the Constitution at the National Archives.

I will ask you any question I feel as often as I feel I should. After all it is my right to freedom of speech. And yes your rights end at my door step. I don't care if its the door to my home or my business you will conduct yourself in the manner I deem appropriate while on my property, you will not carry dangerous weapons, you will not speak in an offense or crude manner, or violate any other such rule or regulation I choose to impose. The government has no place coming in and telling me otherwise be it at work or at home and your "free man" "status" doesn't give you that right either. If I want to hire security guards to frisk you before you can enter that is my right and it is my right to deny entrance should you refuse the search.

There is simply no way that you can claim that the government should intrude upon private property without being a proponent of increased government control aka a police state.

edit on 3-6-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: add a lil

Yeah no SH!T

I never made such a claim.

If everyone hired guards to frisk people on every private property there was it would be real fun wouldn't it.

I agree. Feel everyone up as often as you can legally get away with. Now go away.

reply to post by MegaMind


Now go away? Seriously? Your going to tell someone whom is raising a valid, logical argument against your desires to establish a police state to "now go away?"

Is that the best you can do? You can't address my points because they are valid so you tell me "now go away?" Do you think your some sort of pontiff that can command me to do something because you cannot defend yourself against me? Thats actually hilarious!

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by MegaMind

 

Your going to tell someone whom is raising a valid, logical argument against your desires to establish a police state to "now go away?"

I never stated any such desire or made any of the claims you said I made. If I did you could quote me. You are trolling pure and simple.

We are done.

reply to post by MegaMind


You don't understand that by saying "even if I'm on private property I want my rights" that you are advocating an expansion of government to a "police state" level. Thats fine I can understand that you do not understand.

That doesn't mean that I am trolling and it doesn't mean that your refusal to be open minded to the consequences of your viewpoint shouldn't be discussed.

Do you feel that by saying "we are done" that somehow you can exert control over me to end the dialogue?

reply to post by g146541


There is only ONE way to give up your right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure and that is for 2/3rds of congress and 3/4th's of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. Other than that, if someone says that you cannot search me or seize my property without a warrant describing the crime that is suspected of having been committed and the persons or items to be seized, issued upon probable cause or affirmation, then the gov. is obligated to operate under the constraints placed upon it by We the People.

Jaden

reply to post by Death_Kron


It doesn't matter what they WANT to do, it matters what they are obligated to do under the constitution, funny that you are arguing against our constitutional premises and you are a limey... Your ancestors are the one's who didnt' want to stand up to your government and let them do whatever they wanted.

Our founding fathers and ancestors stood up to oppression and many of us are doing that again now.

The TSA is a blatant move by the Fed gov. to say, we don't care about you the people and we are going to do whatever we want whether the constitution allows it or not.

People in the past have tried that method with Americans too, it didn't work out too well for them.

Jaden

reply to post by Death_Kron


IT ABSOLUTELY IS sexual assault, by EVERY definition. If you are touched without your consent on your genitals, it is SEXUAL ASSUALT!!!!!!!!!

I challenge ANYONE to try and touch my daughter on the genitals, I will knock them on their ass.

Jaden

reply to post by Dilligaf28


YES absolutely. Individual rights ALWAYS reign supreme. PERIOD. When it comes to maintaining the sanctity of the our BASIC inalienable rights, no group anything allows circumvention of those individual rights EVER!!!!!!

Jaden