Vin did not protest merely the "randomness" of the physical search. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Past the now-familiar notices of anti-gun tyranny, I pushed my carry-on bag through the X-ray machine, submitting to its scan of my personal effects despite the fact neither the airline nor the airport administration held any warrant to search them, nor even offered me any probable cause.[/quote]
He simply refused to assent, when asked if he minded if his bag was searched. Had they asked to xray his bag, I'm sure his response would have been the same.
Fighting any unconstitutional law helps to fight them all. The "airport security measures" under discussion offer perceived safety while actually violating several of our natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution. So some people can feel safer, we all must have our rights infringed. Is there a difference between airport security and gun control? Both offer perceived safety while infringing rights.
As to anyone bearing personal responsibility for injury to others caused by terrorists if these "safety measures" were not in place, I say, "Feh". Anyone who boards a plane assumes the risks of flying themselves; I have never forced anyone to get on a plane. On the other hand, the state has assumed the responsibility of keeping the masses safe from air terrorism, so is the state liable when its pitiful security measures fail? Can the injured parties sue the state for failing in its role as protector? If so, who actually pays the damages?
Many of the regulations we now face at airports and elsewhere were originally put in place during the Gulf War, yet they haven't been rescinded since.
The War is over, isn't it? Obviously, it's not about safety, it's about power, just like gun control. There's a Franklin quote that fits well here.
------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
He simply refused to assent, when asked if he minded if his bag was searched. Had they asked to xray his bag, I'm sure his response would have been the same.
Fighting any unconstitutional law helps to fight them all. The "airport security measures" under discussion offer perceived safety while actually violating several of our natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution. So some people can feel safer, we all must have our rights infringed. Is there a difference between airport security and gun control? Both offer perceived safety while infringing rights.
As to anyone bearing personal responsibility for injury to others caused by terrorists if these "safety measures" were not in place, I say, "Feh". Anyone who boards a plane assumes the risks of flying themselves; I have never forced anyone to get on a plane. On the other hand, the state has assumed the responsibility of keeping the masses safe from air terrorism, so is the state liable when its pitiful security measures fail? Can the injured parties sue the state for failing in its role as protector? If so, who actually pays the damages?
Many of the regulations we now face at airports and elsewhere were originally put in place during the Gulf War, yet they haven't been rescinded since.
The War is over, isn't it? Obviously, it's not about safety, it's about power, just like gun control. There's a Franklin quote that fits well here.
------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight