Originally Posted by
cestmoi123
You've answered your own question. Only commercial airliners go fast enough, are flexible enough in where they go, and, in the absence of security, can be entered easily enough by the general public to create a viable threat of mass casualties beyond those on board the conveyance to justify the associated security.
My point was that given motivation and opportunity, almost anything can be used as portable weapon that can be directed at ground targets, and all of those things are less secure than your typical airliner.
The fact that it is a commercial airliner in no way requires a greater surrender of liberty than is required for any other means of delivery. Yet, that is what have decided to do.
I am not against security. I am against forced security gained at the loss of liberty. Loss of life is a very serious matter. Protection of innocent life is likewise serious. However, neither is serious to the point that a total surrender of liberty is necessary to provide a reasonable means to mitigate the danger and potential of these losses. That is the all or nothing choice we are given. Surrender totally, or do not fly. It is this to which I disagree.