Whatever happened to the HHMD's? It seems like that would be an easy solution to eliminate some patdowns.

Also whatever happened to the explosive detection machines you would stand in? In college back in 97 or 98 I went on a special tour of a nuclear power plant as part of an engineering society group. I don't think they would do that tour anymore. They had a similar setup as an airport with the WTMD and x-ray belt. They also had this other machine I stood in. They said it was an detected explosive odors and was being installed in major airports. I didn't really start flying until 2003 and I never saw one of these machines. It seems like that would be a more effective way to screen people.

You're welcome.

WE fought for your right to post same said drivel.

Interesting question and I'm not sure there is one right answer but I'll throw out a few more points to ponder - in no particular order.

* Very few crimes are committed by individuals with CC permits
*State licensing requirement vary greatly from state to state. Some states, like MA require(d) proof of proficiency with hands on experience. Others, like VA, merely require the completion of an on-line "course" that seems to focus more on laws rather than handgun safety. Then there are those states that require even less or make it nearly impossible to get a CC permit. If you get a permit from the "hard to get" states (like MD or NY) are you more trustworthy than someone from an "easy to get" state?
*Firearms have been banned from aircraft since what? The 60's?
*FFDOs undergo training on use of a firearm aboard an aircraft. While the movies would lead us to believe that a tiny puncture of the aircraft's skin would lead to catastrophic results, we know that isn't so. OTOH, you don't want the gunfight in the OK corral either.
*Firearms are often banned from public gatherings and almost always where alcohol is served.

Logical enough for you :D I'm sure you were expecting an anti gun rant.

Actually, the TSA actively supports the efforts of terrorists in spending obscene amounts of money to look for implausible threats. The goal of terrorism isn't to blow people up or kill people - it's to force a change in behavior by terrorizing (frightening) them. The TSA has done a bang-up job of both spending obscene amounts of money for no results as well as scaring themselves into the pants of travelers.

If you've seen anyone on FlyerTalk argue that anyone should be allowed to just carry anything at all onto a plane, or that there should be absolutely no security screening at all, please quote it here.

I agree that there needs to be effective, nonintrusive screening of passengers for actual threats to the aircraft.

Knives of any sort don't count. With the cockpit door locked, someone might manage to injure or kill a couple of passengers before being dogpiled into the carpet, but I doubt it.

The greatest lie in recent years is that anything the TSA does now could have prevented 9/11 then.

They had them at least in ATL for a while before someone figured out the devices the TSA had purchased required something called "maintenance."

Yep, I've undoubtedly been lucky, but I've also enhanced by luck by not being an idiot at the checkpoint. These guys aren't always the brightest bulb in the box and anything out of the ordinary (like the zipper sewn into the seam of my pants) confuses them.

Do I really care if the TSA checks my boarding pass against my ID to make sure that I didn't give my BP to Osama? Not really, the airline dude or dudette did that already when I checked my bag and they'll do it again at the gate (without the ID).

Do I insist on seeing my stuff 100% of the time? Not really; my laptop is in a "checkpoint friendly" bag that is attached to my carryon with a foot long keystrap - it isn't easy to walk off with either and my cell phone and other stuff is buried in aforementioned carryon. Somebody can take my half used toothpaste and deoderant if they really want and I have a second pair of shoes in my bag.

If I were looking for a fight I could find one everytime I traveled.

Who would argue with that? I see there are some who aren't wearing the tin-foil hats.

Yep. Me too ;)

See post 26 (quoted above.)

This was written by WBAL's General Manager. It's time to boycot every single one of his advertisers.

This was a good thing that he wrote this article.

I think you missed the distinction - the post you quoted argues against "enhanced" security, not that there should be no screening at all.

I did not know what to expect. I am glad you answered. MA does not have a reciprocity agreement, I know this, and so it does not apply, but I understand your objection.

So why are they banned in some venues? Where alcohol is served makes sense and I can lose my CCP if I drink and carry, so ignore that one. Why are they banned on an airplane or other public places? And, what is it about those public places that makes either me or my lawfully carried firearm more dangerous?

Do you remember the Vietnam commander who told the reporter it was "necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"?

TSA is destroying American freedoms in order to save them. TSA tyranny is a slap in the face to military professionals who understand what they're defending.

A lot of us have friends and relations who died protecting what TSA tramples everyday.

Paranoid?

Ahh ... but now we can have an honest conversation.

Let's start with a premise stated before: 9/11 (which seems to have been the chief reason for the creation of the TSA) was not a failure of screening. Presumably, the private screeners pre-9/11 would've kept the box cutters off the aircraft if they had been told to do so.

So ... with that aside, the question is: is TSA screening better than the pre-9/11 screening we had performed by private contractors? What value is added by having this function performed by federal government employees --- if any?

I know that I don't know the answer to that question. But it's a legitimate question that deserves legitimate debate.