Anyone flying soon?

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

So leave your nail clippers and bottles of Scotch in checked luggage.

It's not that difficult to qualify for a CCW (Clipper Carry With), even unknowingly. I apparently have done so.

 

[Stu L.]

Here is what I'm going to do when I fly to NAMM in Jan,

1) Be sure that your in compliance with all other regulations, there is no reason to give TSA probable cause for a more intrusive search. So leave your nail clippers and bottles of Scotch in checked luggage.

2) Opt out of the full body scanner if one is in place. Inform the TSA agent that the scanner is intrusive and the fourth amendment guarantees you a right to privacy and avoidance of unreasonable searches.

3) If they choose to pat you down because you opted out. I would do this. 1) Do not resist, but do the following before the search. 3) remain calm and even in your response to them 3) Ask the agent if he has a warrant 4) Ask the agent for his or her name and badge number and write it down. 5) Inform them that you consider any physical search to be unconstitutional and that they are performing a nonconsensual search. 6) Inform them that any contact in sexual areas will be considered sexual assault and you will pursue recourse under the full extent of the law. 7) If you have a friend there with a cell phone or camera, have them record the episode. 8) When you arrive home immediately contact a Lawyer or perhaps a legal activist group and proceed with a law suit.

I suspect that by the time I fly (mid Jan) this will already have been litigated at some level.

I was actually thinking along the same lines. But do you think you would be allowed access to your flight? And I still wonder, can a family be separated for searching? I will not be happy if my child is chosen "randomly" and not me.

This could be great fun for my 2yo. How can I do a rolleyes smiley from my iPhone...

 

[NateS]

Here is what I'm going to do when I fly to NAMM in Jan,

1) Be sure that your in compliance with all other regulations, there is no reason to give TSA probable cause for a more intrusive search. So leave your nail clippers and bottles of Scotch in checked luggage.

2) Opt out of the full body scanner if one is in place. Inform the TSA agent that the scanner is intrusive and the fourth amendment guarantees you a right to privacy and avoidance of unreasonable searches.

3) If they choose to pat you down because you opted out. I would do this. 1) Do not resist, but do the following before the search. 3) remain calm and even in your response to them 3) Ask the agent if he has a warrant 4) Ask the agent for his or her name and badge number and write it down. 5) Inform them that you consider any physical search to be unconstitutional and that they are performing a nonconsensual search. 6) Inform them that any contact in sexual areas will be considered sexual assault and you will pursue recourse under the full extent of the law. 7) If you have a friend there with a cell phone or camera, have them record the episode. 8) When you arrive home immediately contact a Lawyer or perhaps a legal activist group and proceed with a law suit.

I suspect that by the time I fly (mid Jan) this will already have been litigated at some level.

Genius.

Makes me wish I had a reason to fly. Alas, everyone I know is within the state and I like driving, anyway

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I agree, and they aren't even effective. I have a CCW and twice in the last six months I have entered areas forgetting I was carrying where it was illegal (in one case borderline). In both situations the metal detectors (one case a hand wand) did not detect a commander sized all metal .45 pistol in a holster inside my waist band. I am sure that a criminal wanting to smuggle a weapon in would have had no issues.

A criminal, yes. Or even just a paranoid person given to outrage at imagined slights and dangers. That would be disturbing.

 

[Son of Sanford]

It was early in the thread, IIRC. As for reading--well, read on.
So now it's down from "a lot" to "some". Excellent.http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10024781&postcount=159

A lot of responses" and "some" posters are two very compatible phrases in two very compatible responses.

His post was a lot earlier in the thread. More importantly, it was easy to overlook because his other posts were about other facets of the topic. On the other hand, your primary (arguably sole) focus has been on the political motivations of others.

A focus that began with his post. How did you manage to catch a focal point of my posts, miss how they originated when I quoted him and then proceed to lecture me on the nature of my responses?? Even more telling, YOU quoted him shortly after he posted. Ooops. Maybe you did not miss it, maybe you just read things you agree with differently.

Soapbox, you say?

And finally...
I'm quoting it now for the third time, with helpful bolding. Maybe you should reconsider your sarcasm about reading things.

Am I on a soapbox? Yes. I have got no problem stating that and do not really consider it a negative term. When reading or participating in discussions like this it is frankly sad to watch people flex their political leaning on the issue. When people begin dropping Coulter's name in a negative light or quoting from their favorite political publication for justification of their stance you simply cannot state that this isn't politcal for people even if it doesn't follow the political lines you are used to seeing. I am not sure why someone would even take that stance. I aam giving you the benefit of the doubt on your motives, but when you take issue with a post you believe to be taking a side while "missing" posts of similar nature representing the other "side", it could be interpreted as your own political bias coloring your read of the thread.

As for my missing my own wording: my apologies. In light of your "missing" all the political responses except mine, I guess I should consider myself in good company and should have trusted your knowledge of my posts from the start. Again, my apologies.

 

[Son of Sanford]

His sarcasm is clearly the best part, all things considered.

Cheerleading is better fitting and more substantive role for you in this thread. I approve.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Here is food for thought. More people died in Finland last year from falling down than being blown up by a terrorist on a plane.

More people in the US die from poverty than being blown up by a terrorist on a plane.

Where are my 8 wheeled walkers for Finlanders and some food and shelter for the poor people. Of course at the rate the TSA is going, where is the Ritz Carlton and Caviar.

This bears repeating, I think.

 

[Son of Sanford]

This bears repeating, I think.

I agree. I would also argue that the very airport traffic statistics that people used to discount the "Israeli "Method" should be considered with the new procedures. Reliably patting down or Xraying every person that comes into the airport just is not realistic. I am not entirely in the camp that my rights are violated by the searches but I am not so sure these new processes are going to protect me from a terrorist attack any more than ducktape and plastic over my windows and my daughter does not have to suspend everything I have taught her her about strangers and touching to put plastic on my windows. borgman made a good point about the penalties for refusing a search and going home, too. I noticed it has gone largely untouched by those in support of the pat downs

 

[Arrachion]

Sometimes I wonder if somewhere in the back of some folks' minds it just doesn't click that we are at war.

At war.

I hate Eurasia as much as the next guy, maybe more (or is it Eastasia?). It doesn't matter.

Our war machine is doing more to our citizens than to our "enemy" when little old lady's and children are the focus. Tim Osmond is laughing from wherever he is.

 

[burk48237]

I was actually thinking along the same lines. But do you think you would be allowed access to your flight? And I still wonder, can a family be separated for searching? I will not be happy if my child is chosen "randomly" and not me.

This could be great fun for my 2yo. How can I do a rolleyes smiley from my iPhone...

Provided you get there early enough, I don't see how they can denny you access to your flight if you allow a "nonconsensual" pat down. But I suspect if you follow those suggestions, they may take their time with the search. Remember inconvenience appears to be the business model of both the airline industry and the government.

 

[rr5025]

I hate Eurasia as much as the next guy, maybe more (or is it Eastasia?). It doesn't matter.

Our war machine is doing more to our citizens than to our "enemy" when little old lady's and children are the focus. Tim Osmond is laughing from wherever he is.

Dude come on! You hate Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia. I've gotta be going though I'm late for the two minute hate.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Dude come on! You hate Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia. I've gotta be going though I'm late for the two minute hate.

Oceania's next.

 

[Simo98]

Oceania's next.

Oh-****

 

[jp58]

Sometimes I wonder if somewhere in the back of some folks' minds it just doesn't click that we are at war.

At war.

We aren't "at war." You cannot be at war with an ideology or a group of people. That's called a conflict.


It doesn't bother me that we are trying to be secure in our country. It does bother me that I have to get probed to pick my father up at the airport, especially considering I'm not even getting on a plane.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

In two weeks I'm flying to Hong Kong. I'll let everyone know how it goes.

I went through a full body scanner two weeks ago when I flew home from the AES convention. No big deal there.

 

[Stu L.]

I went through a full body scanner two weeks ago when I flew home from the AES convention. No big deal there.

Were you randomly selected, or did everyone have to?

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I was selected. Randomly, as far as I can tell. They had the standard walk-through metal detector right next to the full-body thing.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I'm not lobbying for LESS MEASURES. Duh. You are. Sometimes I wonder if somewhere in the back of some folks' minds it just doesn't click that we are at war.

At war.

With who, exactly?

 

[Brad Johnson]

We aren't "at war." You cannot be at war with an ideology or a group of people. That's called a conflict.

The War in Afghanistan most certainly is called a war. As such we are said to be at it. That's called reality.

It doesn't bother me that we are trying to be secure in our country. It does bother me that I have to get probed to pick my father up at the airport, especially considering I'm not even getting on a plane.

Really? You must be going through security to do so, which is normally reserved for passengers.

 

[Brad Johnson]

With who, exactly?

I love this place.