We caught sight of this Vice video over at everydaynodaysoff.com. It’s so last year, but it proves what we’ve been saying since inception: airport security is a a joke. Actually, it’s worse than a joke because it lulls millions of people into a false sense of security (not to mention the billions of tax dollars pissed away on the overweight, under-educated blue shirted unionized goons charged with enforcing it). In an alternative world where things are as they should be, Americans would be “allowed” to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms whenever and wherever they travel within the United States. Self defense doesn’t end at airport security. Disarming people only makes them more vulnerable to attack. As we have seen time and time again.
I have a family member whose flown on a flight with a knife on their person, and who didn’t realize it until the plane left the gate.
I’m certain, based on that and the many tests TSA has failed over the years, that as I type this now there are plenty of armed non cops flying the friendly skies.They’re just smart enough to keep their traps shut.
I flew several round trip flights with a jumbo leatherman in my bag before TSA finally caught it. I forgot it was there. Traveled with several lighters without issue back when I smoked.
Are lighters prohibited? Dont need no weapons.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_Flight_347
If you need to hijack a plane all you need to be is convincing and have a good cause.
I flew with a metal gas blowback airsoft M4 in my checked luggage from Italy. In Italy I got a tour of the baggage handling area to explain that its a toy and shoots tiny plastic bb’s. It got stopped again in the states and I got a nice phone call from the Georgia police saying they had some questions about the undeclared fully auto rifle in my bag. I politely told them to look down the barrel (hah) and at the magazine, and it finally made its way to me.
Me too. My lost Swiss Army knife was tucked way down into my laptop bag. I’d been through three security checkpoints and discovered it on the return flight.
Dat ENDO doe
ENDO Mike’s gonna love this. He might sell a few more t-shirts.
I’m no fan of the TSA perverts, but none of those weapons seemed too terrible.
That luggage bomb could do some damage midair
Sure, and a sturdy pen can be used as a personal weapon, but that doesn’t mean reasonableness goes out the window. The two choices are not “no security” or “cavity search level awareness”, or at least they shouldn’t be in a reasonable discussion. I’m okay with guns being generally disallowed from aluminum tubes flying at 30,000 feet, and metal detectors to enforce that.
A bullet hole will not compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft nor cause significant loss of cabin pressure.
I’m oddly not fond of the idea of firearms on airplanes either. As RKBA-2A as I practice on a daily basis, I guess culture has me programmed to believe that firearms belong in your luggage, rather than on your person while on a plane.
Saying that, it should never be a problem bringing unloaded, secured firearms anywhere in an airport, as long as they stay that way. From what I hear, even this is losing ground.
MIchael, a blown out window will cause a significant loss of cabin pressure. Or a bullet could destroy critical wiring. Or it could hit a fuel tank, which could cause an explosion or a forced emergency landing.
It is not just about the damage. It is also about the panic and fear that it will cause. Some people call this terrorist. Also, having watched Mr. Wizard and MacGyver growing up it does not surprise me that stuff like this can be made.
1+
Sadly people seem to have lost the creative/improvising touch.
My thought too, though setting a plane on fire will do enough damage on it’s own if you do it in the right spot.
Actually, the simplest weapon requires no work: a Molotov cocktail made with duty free booze. One person could carry his carry on to the bathroom, prep half a dozen bottles, light them, and come out throwing. Do it over the Atlantic after everybody has gone to sleep and you’ve lost an airplane. Who needs suicide bombers?
This sounds like the definition of a suicide bomber actually.
Or just skip the plane altogether and blow up the clot of people at the security theater station. No need to worry about the pornoscanners on this side of the chubby blue line.
Not only is the TSA not helping, they are actively participating in the creation of a potential massacre site.
You’ve actually alighted on the real problem. Everything we have is focused on stopping the next airplane hijacking, as if that is the only thing terrorists can go after.
I remember the Dulles Airport security lines that snaked through the main terminal. On a busy day, especially Thursday late afternoon (when all of us business travellers are going home) being packed with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in a confined space. This was back in 2005 but I see plenty of evidence at other airports today even if it is less extreme.
Don’t forget the recent bombing in the Russian train station. The suicide bomber set off her explosives in the security line before the metal detector.
The TSA continues to fight the last war.
AND they want to install Sally Ports/Man Traps at the exits, so you can’t escape. Smart…
Exactly.
Indeed. A few mixed chemicals could create a consistency similar to napalm. Or a lighter and spray bottle could make a nasty improvised flame thrower.
“In an alternative world where things are as they should be, Americans would be “allowed” to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms whenever and wherever they travel within the United States.”
Yea, except for private property.
For example, if I so chose I can demand you remove firearms before entering my home. If you don’t like it, you simply don’t come in.
Same with airplanes, *IF* that were the airline’s policy – you would have no standing. Your remedy is to not use their service. You can make your own private airline – and allow guns on board as an alternative if you so wish.
I see your point about private property, but seeing as nearly all of the airlines are completely insolvent and heavily subsidized by the federal government, can those airplanes still be considered private property? Seems to me that jet is the property of the federal government and, by extension, the taxpayers.
There are two issues, first in my proffer I say *IF* it were the airline’s policy and not the fed govs. So it’s hypothetical. Second, the subsidization…. errrr Corporate Welfare… for airlines, oil companies, walstreet, etc is a whole different topic that will get me on my soapbox. Suffice to say, that shouldn’t be the case.
Actually, the aircraft are the property of whatever institution lent the airline the money to buy them until they’re paid off. You seriously don’t think American Eagle/Trans Dogpatch Airlines has a billion dollars to throw into an aircraft fleet, do you?
Nonsense. An airplane operated by an airline company is *not* private property in the same sense as your home.
A privately owned airplane is another matter, perhaps, although it is also publically regulated, it is private transportation.
It would be an interesting experiment if (in a free country) a group of people invested in a bunch of 737s and started an independent airline offering no security checkpoints and no restrictions on open carry of pistols. Just to see how popular it would be and how safe.
My guess is that hijackers were stay FAR away from them.
Somebody always comes up with this and I’ll ask the same question as I always do, hoping for some coherant reply besides ZOMGTSAWTFRGGRGRGRGRGRG!!!— What is to prevent a terrorist organization from buying a sizable number of seats on “Freedom Air” to wieght the odds of a takeover in their favor? Since we’re advocating that carry = security, right?
I would like somebody to really think this through, because all I see happening is a raging gun battle with multiple casulties and a good chance of the airplane going down anyway, if not successfully taken over by the evil terrorist org in question and driven into its target.
Are we talking 100% freedom to carry?
If not, what restrictions?
Who do you trust to govern those restrictions?
In addition, would this policy have done you any good in lone bomber scenarios where the guy just reaches down and attempts to detonate his shoe with a lighter? You know the only reason that didn’t actually succeed, right?
I mean, I’m willing to be convinced here. But so far, it’s looking just as good for the bad guys since collatoral damage only benefits their attempt.
I saw a thing on TV one night where the MC was talking about how to keep a terrorist from taking over a plane. The plan was to pass a pistol out to every passenger as they boarded the plane. Of course there would be some real problems with that, but do think anybody would try and take over a plane with 200 guns pointed at them!
Recommended reading: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa742_web_1.pdf
It’s the policy analysis of the TSA done by the Cato Institute. The report draws heavily from the Government Accountability Office’s audits of the TSA, and multiple reports from Independent Security Consultants.
Arming pilots and installing security doors to the cockpits are the only cost effective programs the TSA has.
Yep. I clearly remember accidentally making a mockery of the system while flying home on leave years ago. As I was going through my carry-on (simple backpack) between flights and through all security, my eyes widened as I saw CRKT folder at the bottom of the bag. It was at that moment that I lost any and all faith in the ablilities of the TSA. It truly saddens me when I think of just how much time and money has been wasted on this worthless, invasive program.
It seems like the only real risk here is incendiaries getting on to the plane? Everything else was silly, but it seems pretty easy to start a significant fire on a plane in flight, if they sell this kind of stuff after the security checks.
calling thousands of good people “unionized goons” just doesn’t sit very well with me…
Hey, they’re ‘just doing their jobs’ ?
Right?
I like the British slang term for their kind of bureaucrat: a “Jobsworth” from the phrase they always say if you ask them to apply a little common sense ” I’d love to help you, but that’s more than my job’s worth.”
Well, OK. Let’s exclude the handful of good, talented screeners and just concentrate on the overwhelming majority than.
Yeah, it would suck. Luckily, we’re talking about TSA here, so we needn’t worry about any “good people”. None are involved.
Why bother with what’s after the checkpoint? Attacks on the space before the checkpoint has the same disruption effect. See also, dude with an AR-15 at LAX.
This argument is as painful as the gun control debate.
Just like in a mass shooting, if the shooter is determined and has half a brain, there is no stopping him unless there is someone who available to confront them.
After 9/11, many of the security areas had armed police of military, that eventually went away. Public does not want guns to held by the TSA, we do not want guns on airplanes. However, all it will take is a determined gunman (see recent TSA shooting) or someone to bomb the security like or has many have pointed out and the video shows, a determined person to setup a device that will send smoke and fire throughout the cabin. The mass hysteria that will ensue will be enough to do damage and kill people.
We live in a naïve society that believes everything is pixy dust and rainbows and there is no evil in the world and somehow believes some magical government entities can save them. Even though a study just released says NSA surveillance does little to prevent terrorism (http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/13/5303694/nsa-surveillance-does-little-to-prevent-terrorism-says-think-tank). Until we have some device like in minority report that effectively predict crime before it happens, stuff will happen no matter how much Joe Public believe is can be prevented.
“… if the shooter is determined and has half a brain, there is no stopping him unless there is someone who available to confront them.”
Not only is that absolutely true, it is absolutely a key truth.
There are an infinite number of ways to disrupt and damage something … and an equally infinite number of ways to harm or kill fellow citizens. It is a fool’s errand to try and prevent all manner of death and mayhem with laws, processes, security systems, etc.
The closest we can ever get to “safety” is to do two things:
(1) Promote healthy, stable families that raise healthy, stable children.
(2) Be ready to intervene and stop anyone who unleashes death and mayhem.
Please note that concerned citizens need effective tools to stop spree killers and terrorists … which must include firearms in addition to harsh words, hands, pepper spray, and cell phones.
Well, actually, we do. It’s the computer software that the FBstasi uses to target individuals who are ‘at risk’ of engaging in Muslim terrorism.
Pity that, instead of spending god only knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars fitting them up with bogus cases before they get round to organizing their own ineffectual plans, the feds don’t simply do the Israeli thing and hand them a couple thousand bucks to go back home where they belong. Of course, if all the terrorists were somewhere that they couldn’t actually hit the US, who would bother to pay for the FBI?
But, but where else can the overweight, under-educated, blue-shirted unionized goons be employed but in Government? DHS is the next generation JOBS program. It’s for the children…
Do not like it, do not fly.
No. YOU don’t like the risk, YOU don’t fly. And stop demanding an illusion of safety at the expense of my rights.
I’ve dealt with the TSA several times for professional
reasons. Each time I came to the conclusion that as
long as a person had the IQ of a carrot they could
smuggle almost anything through. And considering
some of the employees; it’s not hard to see where
many of the breakdowns in security are.
This again?
Look, just stop already. I know we all have a rabid, white hot hatered for the all things TSA, but actually calling this stuff a serious threat to aviation just makes you look woefully ignorant, if not criminally dumb. Here’s a news flash that I think most thinking people can agree upon– NONE of Evan’s weapons can take down a plane. Arguably his most effective piece is the one shot magazine gun… Which will only ensure you get raped by the other 199 passengers aboard your flight. Hell, that incediary at 00:14 can’t even move the meager particle board that sits above it, let alone breach any interior surface of an aircraft cabin. Likewise the suitcase bomb. In fact, I’m pretty sure the only way it could kill somebody was for them to sit on top of it and burn to death. While everybody watched.
Fine, you hate the TSA. Your readers sympathize. But honestly? Parading this saddness around isn’t the way to do it.
Years ago, coming back from the Philippines, at the Manila airport, They had armed military personal at the entrance, with M16’s.
Your family could not come in and wait with you, unless they had a boarding pass, No pass, no get in!
I just came home from the Philippines. Security there is tight! I’ve never flown to Isreal, but it is my understanding the the Philippines adapted the Isreali model of airport securty, You can’t get into the building with out a ticket, and you are immediately screened thru a metal detector and ALL your luggage is x-rayed. You check in at the counter and turn in your checked bags, where they are x-rayed again before loading into the aircraft. You now walk with your carry on luggage toward the gateways where you are again run thru a metal detector and your carry on is x-rayed. Once you arrive at your gate, you are again scanned thru a metal detector and your carry ons are x-rayed again. A few years ago, I saw an American woman loudly object to this final screening and she was led away by 2 armed security officers and not allowed on the flight with us. Would I like to see this system used in America? No, but in a country like the Philippines that has a violent muslim separatist group operating through out the nation, I sure felt a little safer with that kind of security. Guards there typically patrol in pairs and are armed with handguns and M-16’s and occasionally dogs.
Coming home, Japan ran us thru scanners just once, and I cleared Customs in Detroit airport which seems to have the usual TSA set up with armed airport police, and the same for Newark, NJ. My last visit to JFK in NY, they still had a heavy military security presence in addition to police which was basically unchanged since the 9-11 attacks.
For those of you thinking about buying your own airplanes/airline and eliminating TSA security, good luck in finding an airport that will allow you to fly in and out. Due to the liability, I can’t imagine any airport will allow an airline to not use the full TSA security system. Do I believe that the TSA is providing 100% safety? Heck no, it is theater to calm the unknowing masses into thinking that they are safe, but they do manage to catch some nitwits every day trying to fly with loaded guns, swords, axes, etc. And just my opinion, but if someone is stupid enough to try to bring an ax, or loaded firearm onto an aircraft under the well known current rules, then I really don’t want that person on my flight because he/she is an idiot.
You know you’re an extremist when you think passengers should be allowed to bring guns on planes. I mean, really… one errant discharge, one “whoops” moment, could bring down an entire plane, killing hundreds on board.
Want to smuggle a gun on board an airplane? Just put it in your carry-on and have someone do something noisy and shocking as the bag goes through the machine. Almost guaranteed the screeners will look at the distraction and miss the gun.
Comments are closed.