“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”These timeless words spoken by Ben Franklin went through my mind as I stared into the distance in front of me at the Nashville International Airport. This wasn't the first time that I've opted out of the backscatter scanners, nor was it the first time I'd received an "enhanced" pat down.
But unlike the many atrocious reports you've probably read or heard about of aggressive, rude, obnoxious patter downers, I've always had fairly uneventful and painless (or as painless as having a gloved hand running around my waist band can be) experience with the TSA. So I really can't really personally relate to some of the outrageous stories that have been told (like this one).
But that's no excuse to accept these kinds of invasions into our personal privacy just "to obtain a little temporary safety." This kind of violation wouldn't have been tolerated even a decade ago, but today, people will go through nearly anything so long as it's 'for your safety.'
What's even more sobering is the knowledge that the airports are only the first step. The distrust of Americans will eventually move to more general public places like stadiums and schools (oh wait, we already have that), and will only become more and more invasive. But are we actually safer in the air and on the ground today then we were in a pre 9/11 world? I would wager that we're not.
But I know the solution to this whole problem: weapons, maybe even assault rifles.
Yes, I just said that, allow the thing that liberals have nightmares about, and constantly rail against, onto planes. Actually though, they're already on a lot of planes. Many pilots are allowed to have a gun in the cockpit, and more than 10% are armed in the sky (per this not-so happy-about-it article).
Just as arming American citizens can and has protected innocent life on the ground in schools and in public, allowing the people to protect themselves and those around them while in the air will not only make us safer, but it will preserve our liberty and freedom.
So just for the purpose of playing devil's advocate: :)
ReplyDeleteI've heard the argument that flying is not a right. It is a convenience offered by airline services, and if they want to require security checks before participating, they may do so. If you don't want to go along with it, don't fly.
Of course, government over-regulation is generally un-cool. I think if it was private airline companies requiring security checks I would feel less rebellious about it.
I'd like to add that I've had several pat-downs, and the person doing it was always very professional, respectful, and nice. The most uncomfortable part was standing next to the scanner in my socks while a businesslike TSA man shouted, "Female opt-out!" Sometimes the people at the scanner try to make you feel like an idiot for opting out. Oh well. I have that choice.
Did I miss the part in the constitution where it says that only the things listed are rights, and everything else is a privilege? ;)
ReplyDeleteGood point though, I'd be all for the airlines themselves handling the security. Just think, then they would have competition, and all try to find the quickest, safest, least invasive method possible, because people could choose which airline to fly on because of their security system. People who are paranoid about terrorists could fly on "Super Safe AIrlines," and inteligant Americans could fly on "Conceal Carry Commended Airlines"!
Yeah, the guys yelling is kind of interesting. Don't they all have radios on their vests? Yeah, I think it's to make you feel like an outsider.