Sure. Do you like being frisked, undressed, wanded, and x-rayed against your will to have those things done to you? Do you like your private property being wrested from you against your will and which the government then sells at a profit? It is nothing more than legalized theft under color of authority.
I'm guessing that you don't attend court, legislative sessions, concerts, and the like, either. It's not like you don't know this going in. If it's against your will, then you have a fundamental problem with the Freedom of Choice. As for your property, reading is fundamental. YOU chose to accept these restrictions with knowledge of them when you purchased your ticket. Simply removing yourself from the line at that point will enable you to retain the restricted items. As mentioned, there are now kiosks that will mail them to your home. Get back in line, and try to convince the man or woman who finds something else you've foolishly decided to bring against regulation, and you can keep at it until you either manage to run out of proscribed objects, or miss the plane.
I thought we covered that quite nicely HERE.
Sorry, Bubba, but that's an entirely different thread. That type of dishonesty doesn't wash. Nobody should have to research all of your tin-foil posts, in numerous threads, only to be told your quote above. You didn't cover jack, nor bring that information to the table before being called on it. Your quaint opinions on what constitutes "type" are plainly those of someone prouder that they had a thought than actual information.
Thus the comment being "martial-type" law. I guess you needed more parsing.
Nope. Saying it twice only doubles the error, it doesn't make it more correct.
Gang members are urban terrorists. They terrorize their neighbors and most of them have merely killed one or two people and many have never killed at all. Holding your neighbors under threat of harm is terrorism plain and simple. Like I said, you need every nuance covered for every post lest you point out the obvious which was not included because there was no real need to do so for most of those who gather here.
Let's try to excerpt my quotes in order. The fact that you either cannot, or will not, isn't a brilliant ploy on your part, but it does speak volumes about your integrity. You may be right about nuances, as most of the people here will no doubt ignore your specious attempt at explaining your own errors in judgement as "they know, anyway, so why speak of it".
True, whether that "one" is Mohammad Atta or Timothy McVeigh. Wasn't Richard Speck a terrorist on a smaller scale? Richard Ramirez? The Zodiac killer? Angelo Buono Jr.? Albert DeSalvo?
How many of that group cost us any of our freedoms? We accepted the Specks, Ramirez', Zodiacs, Buonos, and DeSalvos as acceptable losses in a free society. The only ones who lost any freedoms, with the exception of the Zodiac, were the perpetrators themselves.
That WAS your quote, correct?
Again, you need a litany of murder methods or can't get the post. I did, after all, include strangulation in that post so it should have been obvious that the ".44 mag Bulldog Special" was not the only method; nor is it a requisite device for the carrying out of murder. Again, you failed to "get it" because it was worded too simply.
I'm going to suppose that the quote needs the mention of strangulation, and rape, added after you were called to task for simplistic statements, to be valid? It wasn't included. Why not? Your leaving out bits and pieces of your argument, and then plugging them in later, is yet another blow to any integrity supposedly possessed.
So I screwed up the fact that it is a .44 special and not a magnum.
It's a GUN BOARD, for cripes sake. If you can't be trusted to verify your facts about the root knowledge of the Board, how is anyone going to trust the rest of your little diatribe?
An apology wrapped in an insult is not an apology.
Well, if you had checked my other threads, you'd have seen that you are correct, and that I don't feel the need to do anything more. After all, the rest of us understood that.
To terrorize is to commit terrorism. Remember the thread on this board about the guy who was driving and another car cut him off and he pointed his finger like a firearm? It turned out that the other car was, as I recall, being driven by an FBI or SS agent and he pulled the guy from his car at gunpoint. The guy pointing the finger? Charged with "making terroristic threats".
Or how about THIS ONE?
You can be charged with anything, same as being sued. Where's the final outcome? You mean that you haven't followed up on it? The phrase "terroristic" is new to the legal lexicon, and encompasses many vague ideas in an attempt to standardize them. Bad law is bad law.
Besides, I'm guessing that you just answered your own question, right?
I was unaware that the schoolyard bully terrorized whole segments of the population and made them fearful of going out at night because he might sneak up and blow their head off with a .44 mag Bulldog Special, strangle them and throw them off of a roadway in the Hollywood hills, or rape and strangle them in their beds. Schoolyard bullies certainly have come a long way baby.
So, instead of making light of the bully, you really meant to include him or her in your "proofs" right? You just needed to blow a little smoke until something worked for you. After all, threatening harm to another school-mate must also be considered "terroristic threats" in your book.
Well, that was fun. The old proverb about arguing with idiots is alive and well. Stick to expectig people to know what's in the relevant thread, and never expect anyone to care enough to remember your bleatings in any other posts in a different thread. Oh, and try not to make the other guy's points for him. :barf:
