TSA wants to double security fee

[hemet dennis]

Cost could well be a factor in the decisions but, depending on numbers, perhaps not a large proportion of the present cost of airport security. This website estimates costs as:

While the TSA usually cites scanner costs ranging from $140,000 to $180,000 apiece, this is only the scanner cost and does not include associated airport modifications and installation expenses.

http://tsanewsblog.com/1847/news/time-for-a-rational-perspective-on-airport-scanners/

Well if you find the real reason you let me know OK

But if the they make a rule to not search kids under 5 years old where do you think the next bomb or gun will be hidden.

 

[thaiturkey]

I read somewhere that burqa wearers were also objecting to body scans.

 

[hemet dennis]

I cant understand why the founding fathers didn't put anything in the constitution about airport security. Were they just tired or lazy seems like a big over site to me.

 

[hemet dennis]

I read somewhere that burqa wearers were also objecting to body scans.

Why would anyone want to scan those people ? I'd let them sit in the cockpit.

 

[Royd]

Are you going to keep derailing this thread ? What does that have to do with the fees ? If you don't like the price of flying don't fly.

Excuse me, but I responded to a post and if you think that doubling the fees is about affording a better, safer and quicker experience at the loading chute, you are definitely self decieved....It's about keeping a bunch of useless government employees, who have formed another union, occupied.

When I show up at 5am to an army of 50 blue shirts standing around like they own the world, there's a problem.

 

[thaiturkey]

I cant understand why the founding fathers didn't put anything in the constitution about airport security. Were they just tired or lazy seems like a big over site to me.

They didn't foresee the M16 either!

 

[thaiturkey]

Excuse me, but I responded to a post and if you think that doubling the fees is about affording a better, safer and quicker experience at the loading chute, you are definitely self decieved....It's about keeping a bunch of useless government employees, who have formed another union, occupied.

When I show up at 5am to an army of 50 blue shirts standing around like they own the world, there's a problem.

That's to do with the way the rules are administered, not the rules themselves.

Heathrow had some private firm checking hand baggage before the main bag scan. The staff rummaged through bags looking for over-sized containers and confiscated them. They must have made some good pocket money from cosmetics at the weekend markets. Once they tried to take my SLR camera away because it wasn't in my bag.
Some months later, it was found that the Home Office had given clearance for security work to 5,000 illegal immigrants!

 

[bakerjw]

Some of the world's craziest mass killers in recent years had licences to carry guns.

Please cite references. If you can, then I'd like to see a comparison of that list to the list of "world's craziest mass killers" that were not licensed to carry a weapon.

There seems to be a recurring subtle view that anyone who carries a firearm is some kind of redneck backwoods hick with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to draw down at the slightest provocation. That simply isn't the case. The one thing that CCW permit holders realize is that there are consequences to using a firearm in protection of oneself or of another person.

 

[NYboy]

Is not the first rule of gun safety know your background? How can you shoot a gun in a plane with out risk of hitting someone innocent?

 

[chickened]

Once the shooting starts I agree all hell would break loose. What you are overlooking is most people would not start shooting when someone can shoot back.

A policeman with a gun is just as capable of flipping out as the next guy.

We are concerned here with is terrorist hijacking a plane not public safety from someone flipping out that was addressed a long time ago.

The awareness of the ownership of guns by the citizens was and is a big concern by any invading force and it is proven that it was a concern.

Brittain in all its wisdom changed its mind and had guns sent to them during WWII by relatives in America. We are not that far advanced as a society that we can take away a man's right to defend himself but some are duped into thinking they are... until they have to do it personally.

The second rule of gun ownership is do not pull the gun unless you need to. At that point does it really matter? you are faced with death what would any of you actually do? You would shoot.