Greetings and Salutations to All my Kith and Kin and All the Ships in Outer Space:
According to a news report at the INFOWARS web site, dated Thursday 03 May 2012, Rand Paul, a United States senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, has launched a campaign to end the Transportation Security Administration.
But, the devil is in the details.
Senator Paul wants the TSA to be replaced by a private agency.
Further, during the incident where Senator Paul was detained by the TSA at an airport, instead of referring to our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America, which specifically forbids ANY police agency from ANY interference with congressional representatives when they are travelling, Senator Paul simply cooperated with them and then publicly complained.
The TSA agents who unlawfully detained him should be arrested and prosecuted for committing a federal felony while acting under color of law.
So, why hasn't that been done?
Why hasn't Senator Paul lodged a formal complaint and demanded their arrest and prosecution?
Replacing the TSA with a private agency will NOT solve the problem.
After all, allowing a private agency to deliberately violate Amendment IV of our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America is just as bad as if the TSA were permitted to continue doing it.
Any infringement on unalienable rights and personal liberty is still a violation, no matter who is doing it.
There should be NO screening of passengers at airports!
In airport terminals and/or aboard commercial airline flights, both passengers and crew should be free to wear, concealed or openly, loaded firearms on their persons.
Yes, it is safe to wear a loaded pistol on an airplane.
After all, federal agents wear their concealed firearms when flying.
No, an airplane won't crash just because a firearm is discharged during the flight.
Modern airliners can easily sustain major structural damage without crashing, as has been previously demonstrated by cases of metal fatigue during flight.
That's how you stop violent crime in airports and on aircraft.
True, it won't stop a bomb, but a combination of profiling prospective passengers, along with the proper use of trained dogs would detect and /or deter most explosive devices.
No matter how strict the security screening might be, there is always a chance that someone might succeed in smuggling a bomb aboard an aircraft.
Besides, which would you rather have - - - , complete security or the unimpeded exercise of your unalienable rights as an individual citizen?
We know what the founding fathers of this nation thought of that question, and their response, don't we?
El Al airlines has the very best security in the entire world, without unduly harrassing passengers.
If we really want security and safety in our airports and on our airlines, then why don't we follow their example and adopt their procedures?
So, which side is Rand Paul REALLY on?
Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Isn't his proposal merely perpetuating the same ol', same ol' status quo?
John Robert Mallernee
1800 Beach Drive, Unit 311