I would like to purchase the full auto version also but all of the hassle of owning one is not worth it. The point I was trying to make is that Auto Ordinance had reservations about putting it on the free market because it may be used in the wrong way. Now I see people who say to remove the security, like that won't be taken advantage of????

Fortunately, others do not believe "there just aren't that many terrorists out there as Comrade Hawley and Comrade Chertoff, the lowest of the low, would have you believe" and I for for one continue to believe airport screening remains a necessity. I am certainly glad the metal detectors in Vienna worked.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...s0hg280&src=ap

I find the proposed policies of some who've posted here to be alarmist; no different than the policies of the TSA. Neither extreme is preferable.

I did it on le Concorde after 9/11. Heading away from God's Country of course.

Except that the metal detectors you refer to were not at the airport but at the U.S. Embassy.

Please don't forget, air cargo that travels on passenger jets is still not screened for anything.

And you think that this dog and pony show conducted by minimum wage rent a cop rejects is going to make us safe? Yes I remember 9/11 as I lived through it in NYC. And everytime I go through this idiotic idea of airport security I think what a joke.

Are the embassy metal detectors different for those in use at airport?

Because there are holes in the security system, does that mean you should abandon all security procedures or should it mean the holes should be plugged?

No holes are being plugged by the imbeciles "in charge" of the TSA.

These skunks are creating holes by focusing on non-credible "threats" and by harassing passengers. They are truly un-American filth.

Your suggestion as a replacement is to let the airlines impose their own levels of security, which would allow the passenger to choose their airline based on those levels? Capitalism in action?

That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Terrorists like to strike the weakest point. Why haven't we seen ship terminals, trains, cruise liners, or even a terminal at LAX blown up by now? One idiot got caught at the border, ostensibly headed to LAX, but that was ONE idiot since 9/11.

I do not advocate a wholesale dismantling of security precautions, but shoes, liquids, R/C cars, and (most perplexing of all), disposable booties, do not constitute a viable threat.

The below were not identified at border crossings or airline security, but do indicate we just might be looking at more than the mythical 800 pound gorilla. Note in the second link, “explains in Arabic how to turn a toy boat into a bomb”.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...s0hg280&src=ap

http://www.charlotte.com/breaking_ne...ry/295179.html

By their very nature, terrorists mainly strike where they stand to strike the most terror into the hearts of their targets.

Boats and cars are limited in their strike capability. A fully fueled commercial aircraft is an incredible weapon with an endless list of targets.

It's just not enough to blow them up on their own any longer. Why take out 200 in the air when you can add the destruction of a politically symbolic target and the deaths of others to the carnage in order to send a bigger message?

I'd also like to add that talk of security measures is pretty stupid if we don't discuss WHY Islamic fundamentalists want to harm us. Once you figure that out and work to mitigate it, the security part is minor.

Yes indeed.

Then I'd assume that there are a lot of other things on your list of "placecs where the gov't should not be involved." Vehicle emissions, nuclear proliferation, broadcast communication...I could go on.

"The government that governs best, governs least."

www.lp.org