Anti-Gun Nuts in the News, #4

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Scary Necklace Seized by Airport Security

Zealous and diligent airport security staff uncovered a gun yesterday that passenger Marnina Norys of Toronto, Canada, sought to carry on to her flight home. Clearly, the city slicker was a bit unclear on the regulations around air travel as Norys had the prohibited item openly displayed on a chain around her neck.

Vigilant and shrewd security staff were on the ball that Monday morning, however, and were quick to take action. As Norys was feeding her carry-on luggage through the x-ray a security worker commented on her 1 3/4 inch long sterling silver pendant shaped like an antique Colt '45 handgun.

"That's a replica," said the security agent as if Norys should understand why this bit of information was significant. The stunned look on Norys' already harried face prompted the agent to explain that replicas were not allowed on airplanes and advised Norys to put it in her carry on.

Norys, who was moving from harried to annoyed, remarked that the item posed no threat, and could hardly be used to hijack an airplane. However, the security agent searching the bags indicated that it was not the threat of harm that was at issue. "It's what it represents," said the agent,..

Source: Live Journal

[DJL 235]

Keep them coming, this is good stuff. To quote my co-worker, "the sheep are taking over."

I'm waiting for someone to get blocked because of a tattoo.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DZJ 0]

Security staff implementing a policy (probably formulated by people a long way further up the food chain than them) now qualify as anti-gun nuts?

(And a blog post qualifies as 'in the news'?)

[billvon 3,120]

>And a blog post qualifies as 'in the news'?

When your whole life is guns, anything about them is big news.

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

>And a blog post qualifies as 'in the news'?

When your whole life is guns, anything about them is big news.

He is from Texas, what did you expect?

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>And a blog post qualifies as 'in the news'?

When your whole life is guns constitutionally guaranteed rights, anything about them is big news.

There, now you might not bitch about it.

[billvon 3,120]

>There, now you might not bitch about it.

If such people thought there was more than one amendment (the second) our rights would be much more secure.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Security staff implementing a policy (probably formulated by people a long way further up the food chain than them) now qualify as anti-gun nuts?

It's the part about considering a small silver jewelry charm to be a replica gun that is where they went awry. Carrying a full-size fake gun onto an airplane would be an understandable no-no. But a charm necklace is just jewelry. Even the dumbest security cop ought to understand that.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>And a blog post qualifies as 'in the news'?

When your whole life is guns, anything about them is big news.

Is this good enough for you?

Globe and Mail: "Apology over order to stash six-shooter"

My whole life is not guns. And you know that from my many other posts here, over quite a period of time.

goofy: Everyone from Texas does not spend their whole life about guns.

Sheesh. The anti-gunnies are sure quick to start hurling the personal and regional insults...

[piper17 1]

That's what liberals do when the facts are not on their side.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>There, now you might not bitch about it.

If such people thought there was more than one amendment (the second) our rights would be much more secure.

"our rights would be much more secure" - that's a ludicrous statement. Does the same hold true for the people that constantly bitch about separation of church and state? Is their focus on a single amendment "making our rights much less secure"?

How about people bitching about wiretaps and the fourth amendment? (conveniently forgetting about things like Echelon, Carnivore, etc) - is their focus on a single amendment "making our rights much less secure"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DZJ 0]

Fair point, but I'd imagine that no-one batted an eyelid at a few harmless-looking boxcutters a few years back, and these days when it comes to airport security a little bit of irritating/comical paranoia is probably preferable to the alternative.

[billvon 3,120]

>"our rights would be much more secure" - that's a ludicrous statement.

OK. So in your opinion, our rights will be LESS secure if people think that the US Constitution contains 27 amendments?

> Does the same hold true for the people that constantly bitch about
> separation of church and state? Is their focus on a single amendment
> "making our rights much less secure"?

If they do that to the extent that they forget that there are 26 other amendments - yes.

Many GOPers think the US Constitution has only one amendment, the second. They will scream bloody murder if anyone proposes so much as an amendment to a bad gun law - but ignore the far more serious issues posed by the repeated violations of the fourth, fifth and seventh amendments.

Likewise, many democrats would prefer to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and studiously ignore any mention of it while howling about violations of the other amendments.

Overall, I am more concerned by the people who think the consitution has one amendment than by the people who think it has 26. (Well, you can safely forget the 18th and 21st.) However, we would all be better served by not neglecting _any_ part of the constitution still in force, even if the amendment in question disagrees with the political tenets of a given party.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>There, now you might not bitch about it.

If such people thought there was more than one amendment (the second) our rights would be much more secure.

Have you established that John has no regard for the rest? I don't think his posting history would support such a claim. I do think the fact that responses to his postings today/yesterday focused on attacking him rather than the story is noteworthy. The more suitable response would be to yawn and move on.

It is true that many feel that the other 26 rely on the 2nd for ultimate protection of civil liberties.

Others believe that the 1st, specifically the freedom of speech, is the protector of American Rights. So long as we can talk about government attempts to take away rights, we'll be safe. IMO, that theory has been destroyed by reality of the past two Presidents (and futher back), who openly moved to reduce freedoms.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If they do that to the extent that they forget that there are 26 other amendments - yes.

And yet it's only the Republicans you hold up to this standard, while conveniently ignoring the Democrats that do the same thing with different amendments. Nice impartiality there, Bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>while conveniently ignoring the Democrats that do the same thing
>with different amendments . . .

Perhaps if you re-read my post it will all become clearer. Democrats DO do that as well.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>while conveniently ignoring the Democrats that do the same thing
>with different amendments . . .

Perhaps if you re-read my post it will all become clearer. Democrats DO do that as well.

Yes, but it's only the Reps that you hold up as "endangering the rest of our rights".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Many GOPers think the US Constitution has only one amendment, the second.

To be fair, they have consistently proposed at least two others; one against flag burning and another against gay marriage.

Now, I realize this does ignore a couple of existing parts of the Constitution, but it does look like the far right wing does want at least SOME more government intrusion into our lives and are willing to make Amendments toward that end.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>but it's only the Reps that you hold up as "endangering the rest of our rights".

Many democrats would prefer to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and studiously ignore any mention of it while howling about violations of the other amendments.

Overall, I am more concerned by the people who think the consitution has one amendment than by the people who think it has 26. (Well, you can safely forget the 18th and 21st.) However, we would all be better served by not neglecting _any_ part of the constitution still in force, even if the amendment in question disagrees with the political tenets of a given party.

[Lastchance 0]

This is a good reason why the only airplanes I fly in are the ones that I can jump out of. For crying out loud when is all this do goody good bullshit gonna stop?

I may be getting old but I got to see all the cool bands.

[billvon 3,120]

>For crying out loud when is all this do goody good bullshit gonna stop?

When we stop supporting the airlines. That, of course, won't happen.

[quade 4]

Quote

For crying out loud when is all this do goody good bullshit gonna stop?

When the people and governments are willing to pay for more intelligent policy and enforcement. Yes, it costs more money to hire better people that can understand the intent of laws and not just follow them by rote.

Also understand, the last two airline related articles JR posted were NOT from the US.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

>For crying out loud when is all this do goody good bullshit gonna stop?

When we stop supporting the airlines. That, of course, won't happen.

Bill --

To be fair, I highly doubt the airlines hired the enforcement officers in question. We don't even do that any more in our own country.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>"our rights would be much more secure" - that's a ludicrous statement.

OK. So in your opinion, our rights will be LESS secure if people think that the US Constitution contains 27 amendments?

> Does the same hold true for the people that constantly bitch about
> separation of church and state? Is their focus on a single amendment
> "making our rights much less secure"?

If they do that to the extent that they forget that there are 26 other amendments - yes.

Many GOPers think the US Constitution has only one amendment, the second. They will scream bloody murder if anyone proposes so much as an amendment to a bad gun law - but ignore the far more serious issues posed by the repeated violations of the fourth, fifth and seventh amendments.

Likewise, many democrats would prefer to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and studiously ignore any mention of it while howling about violations of the other amendments.

Overall, I am more concerned by the people who think the consitution has one amendment than by the people who think it has 26. (Well, you can safely forget the 18th and 21st.) However, we would all be better served by not neglecting _any_ part of the constitution still in force, even if the amendment in question disagrees with the political tenets of a given party.

You are wrong in how you view this.

People who you may not agree with are concerned about the second amendment issues and the concerted effort by the anti gunners to strip us of this right for many reasons.

Since the second is so unpopular with those who are left leaning and or ultra liberal, we can see that there is no gravity given that amendment or any other by those same individuals.

Anyone proposing that we give up one right, or take it away from many of us, are certainly willing to also take away any other right they disagree with.

You may also notice that those who do not waiver on their support for the second also do not waiver on the rest of our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.

[akarunway 1]

Normally I'd side w/ ya John, BUT in this case>http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/swissminigun-not-intimidating-but-could-still-kill-you-194267.php. Ya never know. I can see a check to make sure it wasn't one of those and then let her carry on. God. If she had a rebel flag tatto she'd prolly be in a secret prison up north somewhere.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.