Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
I think your reading of me as someone who's not a member of "us" is incorrect. I've been plenty critical of TSA in this forum.
It wasn't my intent to characterize anyone's position...
What I was doing was clarifying that the vast vast vast majority on this board believe in
real improvements in security. A few of us ardently believe that disbanding TSA is not only the best way to improve security, but is also necessary to restore lost personal freedoms. Again, I can't recall a single person (lunatics included) that wants 'no' security.
Using this definition, I believe our numbers are huge. Glad you are one of us. ^
Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
What I was trying to point out is that trying to turn TSOs into legitimate LEOs would involve such an expenditure of time and money, and be accessible to so few TSOs, that it might actually demonstrate how far TSOs are from LEOs: a point that many of us here feel is lost on the public in general (and TSA in particular). Deputizing TSOs might actually work to "our" advantage in the long run.
But clearly I'm making too subtle a point. Off to goalie's penalty box I go ...
I get your point, I think. Trying to arm LEOs will be an utter failure and major embarrassment. In turn, it will be obvious to the world that they are not LEOs, but are, in fact, only the clerks they really are. About right?
Unfortunately, I think you give the government and the people of this country too much credit. TSA will find an way (by hiring NEW PEOPLE and GROWING the empire) and most of the sheep in this country will go along with the 'anything for security' chanting. The empire will only grow larger, waste more, and abuse more. Security will not get better. (In fact, I believe that TSOs will be more at risk if they are armed. Think 'going postal'.)
I'm extremely creative, but cannot think of any scenario where this is a good thing. There is some possibility the TSA will become so thuggish that the country will turn on them. Even then, the rest of the government will not want to give up power/tax revenue. At best, TSA will get reformed.
My position, stated many times is simple. Our security should be reasonable. What we have now is not. We are spending far too much $$$, liberty, dignity, time, etc. to gain very little. I dare anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, what TSA is doing is making our security worse. If we're trying to save lives, let's stop buffering up massive amounts of people on the unsecured side of airports.
We wouldn't put up with this treatment at shopping malls. Why do we do it at airports?!?!?!
Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
Actually, that's almost the point I'm trying to make.
Nobody's going to "hand guns" to anyone. Any TSO who wants to be a federal LEO is going to have to demonstrate that they're capable of handling all that's entailed --- and that's going to eliminate a lot of the folks who can't seem to understand even the basics of how TSA is supposed to work. I would guess that 90% of TSOs wouldn't qualify to be LEOs. (Just a guess, mind you; I have absolutely no basis for that guess.)
I agree this would be a huge flop. My estimate is 99.99% would not qualify as a LEO and essential none (except possibly former military or other LEOs) would be good at it. If these people could be LEOs, they would be. No sane person would take the molester job when they could work for the airport police. The exception are retired military/LEOs that may have age (or eyesight, or other) issues.
That said, my gut feeling is not to gamble that massive embarrassment will help reform or dissolve this cancer. I'm sure that some idiot TSO will shoot somebody that insults him at some point. Maybe this will spark nationwide outrage and motivate changes for the better, but maybe not. Power doesn't give up power. Usually the empire just rebuilds the death star with better special (theatrical) effects.