# Body Scanners!



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

What is the Big Deal?

The way I see it, everyone is a potential threat! The guy standing in line 4 people in front of me, that "I" think looks suspicious, has every right to think the same thing about me. If its piece of mind for him to know I dont have C4 up my hind end, and I feel better knowing that he isn't hiding a vial of nerve agent in his armpit. Then so be it.

Dont want a rub down by the TSA, Follow the rules! Go through the damn scanner! Bring you I'Ds and dont be an a$$hole about it. So what if John or Jane Doe gets a good look at your love handles or your less that average sized manhood, or even that Lady Gaga aint really a "Lady". Its confidential information. You think the TSA is really going to risk the billion dollar lawsuit from releasing any sort of private information or scanned images about or of you?!?!

Its a cruel world, their really are people out there who do not like us. The sad fact is, there is "US" out there that don't like us. Why put so much pressure against something that helps protect you and your family?

Are there other ways of screening passengers pre-flight? Sure there is, and I think they should implement them to, make it more of a random thing, ya know. Kind of like you never know what to plan for.

Are there other ways to get bad people and bad stuff on an Airplane? Sure there is, this just makes the criminals and terrorists work harder.

The Media is blowing this stuff way out of proportion, they show a bunch of idiots that make good TV and those idiots are influencing others.

Just venting! Peace Out!


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Totally agree with you. Just amazing how stupid we are and just another example that people will always be upset no matter what you do. We complain when there are security breaches or attacks or slip-ups happen but then complain when they up security because it's too inconvenient for us. Kind of similar to the "not in my backyard" argument. Makes me kind of sad to be the same species as some of these people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I sort of see both points of view. I do worry about those people that travel often, and how strong or physically invasive the X ray is. Then of course I don't like anything that violates the constitution, and as one of Obama's people said "it violates the 4th amendment, but it's necessary". That makes me worry that perhaps the Obama administration could come to the conclusion that it's necessary to violate the 1st or 2nd amendment also. 
It's controversial for sure, and I find it tough to come to a conclusion. On one hand I desire security, but on the other hand I value freedom. Who was it who said that one who gives up freedom for security deserves neither? 
We have seen some dumb things already. In Florida some idiot saved pictures which they are not supposed to do. As if that wasn't dumb enough the fool put them on the internet. Also, there is a section/exemption for mothers who are breast feeding and using a pump. In Phoenix that was violated and when a mother sent a letter complaining they wanted revenge and made it even worse for her next time humiliating her in public. They need to be more careful in their hiring practices. 
Tough question, and real answers are hard to come by.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Five years ago, my 87 year old father in law was pulled aside at the airport because the hardwear from his knee and hip replacement surgeries set off the TSA alarm. He tried to explain with a medical card why. They pulled him aside, without his shoes, denying him to support himself with his cane and used a hand scanner going up and down him in the view of everyone. It was sickening to watch!
He had served as a B-17 top turret gunner in missions over Germany during WWII. The look on his face as this happened was heartbreaking.
I'm sure the he didn't qualify as a terrorist nor did he fit the profile.
*
We talked later, his response was "this isn't the America I fought for".*

At what point do we concentrate our efforts by "targeting" those who fit the Terrorist Profile instead of insulting and treating regular Americans as criminals? 
We have been at War for ten years, its time to use our resources wisely.
Its a slide down a slippery slope when the TSA assumes we are all guilty.

My favorite comment I see and hear is _"it does matter to me, I don't fly anyways"_. 
It will matter someday when their knocking on your door to remove your guns.

*The Bill of Rights only works if we are willing to protect them ALL.*

Not just the ones we think are important to "our personal world". There is no better protections for citizens any where on Earth, but they also needed our effort to maintain them against attacks from those that see them as bothersome!

*Sit back and think about it.* 
Heed Plainsmans comments about our other "rights" being in danger also!

Our money could be better spent focusing on the groups which fit the profile of those who have attacked or threatened to attack us. Wake up or just slowly lose your Constitutional Rights a little bit at a time.
*Apathy on this will prove be fatal as to the very reasons this country was formed in the first place.*


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

I am all for more racial profiling.Sorry if that offends your delicate nature.... I too have mixed feelings about this. Too many stories and videos coming out to totally trust the "judgement" of a lot of these TSA idiots. On the other hand, does a guy turn an eye in the name of security?

I don't feel the need to waste time on a 87yr old man (unless he's Muslim) who clearly has a good damn reason, and proof, why he's setting the detectors off. Nor do I feel the need to see a young boy (unless he's Muslim), think he was 7, stripped of his shirt right out in the open and felt up, as somebody videod it. That was disgusting.

I mean, a little damn common sense goes along ways. I would have no problem with the added security crap, but until these stories, like Plainsmans of the agent posting pics online, and videos of young boys being groped in the middle of a very public place stop coming out, I will have to say, for the time being, I don't like it.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

But as far as the scanners go, I guess I have no problem with them. I think that if everybody just walked through without throwing a fuss, a lot of these stories and videos would not exist. The way I understand it is, if you refuse to go through the scanner, you get the pat down and groping treatment. That should not come as a surprise to anybody. Assuming the TSA agent isn't going to post my pics online, I'll take the scanner.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

NDeaglei, if your grandfather is still alive tell him there is a bunch of us trying to revive the America he fought for. It starts with each of us forgetting the political correctness of fools.

Racial profiling is nothing but political correctness rearing it's ugly head. When you take ten years of information, run it through a non bias computer and it tells you what to look for that is not prejudice. I'll give give you an example, and you tell me if this is racial or just common sense. You put ten years of drug dealer data into a computer, and it tells you this: For northern states. A Florida license plate, on a $200,000 car, black teen, dressed in gang colors, has a higher chance of carrying drugs than a silver haired white female in her 80's. I would have come to the same conclusion without ten years of evidence entered into a computer, but the computer should tell the political correct fools this is no prejudice, nor against black, it is the profile of a drug dealer.

Until we stop using the heart and start using the brain were going to have a lot of problems.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

GSPMIKE said:


> What is the Big Deal?
> 
> The way I see it, everyone is a potential threat! *The guy standing in line 4 people in front of me, that "I" think looks suspicious, has every right to think the same thing about me. * If its piece of mind for him to know I dont have C4 up my hind end, and I feel better knowing that he isn't hiding a vial of nerve agent in his armpit. Then so be it.
> 
> ...


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> I sort of see both points of view. I do worry about those people that travel often, and how strong or physically invasive the X ray is. Then of course I don't like anything that violates the constitution, and as one of Obama's people said "it violates the 4th amendment, but it's necessary". That makes me worry that perhaps the Obama administration could come to the conclusion that it's necessary to violate the 1st or 2nd amendment also.
> It's controversial for sure, and I find it tough to come to a conclusion. On one hand I desire security, but on the other hand I value freedom. Who was it who said that one who gives up freedom for security deserves neither?
> We have seen some dumb things already. In Florida some idiot saved pictures which they are not supposed to do. As if that wasn't dumb enough the fool put them on the internet. Also, there is a section/exemption for mothers who are breast feeding and using a pump. In Phoenix that was violated and when a mother sent a letter complaining they wanted revenge and made it even worse for her next time humiliating her in public. They need to be more careful in their hiring practices.
> Tough question, and real answers are hard to come by.


I see where you are coming from but the desicion is simpler to me. Dont like it? Dont Fly.

The way I see it, taking an airplane to your next destination, it is a business. Yes our freedom allows us to choose if we want to fly, drive, walk or take the train. Once you buy that plane ticket and enter that Airport, your in there domain. You buy the ticket knowing you can be pulled aside and serched, scanned, sniffed, swiped or any other form of screening. Its a business, granted TSA is a goverment organization. You still have to follow the rules you agree to when you buy you ticket.

Its simple, walk through the scanner, get on your plane. If you dont want to, be prepared to be searched. Dont want to be searched. DRIVE, there is laws to obey there too.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

AdamFisk said:


> But as far as the scanners go, I guess I have no problem with them. I think that if everybody just walked through without throwing a fuss, a lot of these stories and videos would not exist. The way I understand it is, if you refuse to go through the scanner, you get the pat down and groping treatment. That should not come as a surprise to anybody. Assuming the TSA agent isn't going to post my pics online, I'll take the scanner.


Correct, with out the fuss and the MEDIA amplifying it, people wpuldn't be so up in arms about this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Its simple, walk through the scanner, get on your plane. If you dont want to, be prepared to be searched. Dont want to be searched. DRIVE, there is laws to obey there too.


Shortly I am headed to Hawaii, but I don't want to drive.

Law enforcement has to have probable cause to stop a car, search a person, etc. What would be the reason TSA can violate the constitution. Even those who have implemented this admit it violates the constitution. You let them violate one amendment and I will guarantee they will violate another shortly.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei said:


> GSPMIKE said:
> 
> 
> > What is the Big Deal?
> ...


 I'm wide awake buddy, were going to loose some rights. But those rights now protect bad people to do bad stuff. Sometimes when crap hits rock bottom (9/11 and the war that followed) stuff has to be modified, for the better. Better than when your father fought for America? Heck no we will never be there again. I`ll pick my battles, this is a right that I`ll let the change.

You cant sit there and tell me that everyone who wants to invoke fear on us has a freakin towel on their head! Look at the domestic terrorists we have had. Granted there is far fewer numbers of them. What a perfect time to cause havoc on America, if we would only focus on middle eastern folks.

I`m all for profiling, heck I find it hard not to be racist most of the time, if it was the best thing to do. Its not, Focus on one group, someone else will show up. Focus on everyone, make it harder for everyone to cause harm.

I'm a realist, I choose to think you could be just as bad as the guy wearing turban. You may be a good guy and so may he. I would hate to just assume that though, and end up having to die midflight cause they made a bomb out of items in hidden places.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > Its simple, walk through the scanner, get on your plane. If you dont want to, be prepared to be searched. Dont want to be searched. DRIVE, there is laws to obey there too.
> 
> 
> Shortly I am headed to Hawaii, but I don't want to drive.
> ...


THE TSA SEARCHING PEOPLE ISN'T AN NEW THING.

The body scanner is simply a new tool!

Walking through a scanner is far from being pulled over or having a police man* randomly *show up to search your body or property.

If you get pulled over at 1:30am on a saturday morning, lets say you have not been drinking, but your buddy you just brought home reaked of booze. Cop smells booze, asks you do do a breathalizer. You say hell no, i'm not putting my lips on ther I have not been drinking! Where do you thing your going to b spending the night?

You give them propable cause when they see something suspisious. Or say "I'm not walking thru that thing"

I`ll say it again if your not hiding anything, do whats requested of you. Have a wonderful trip.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

And then they will convince you that they are not* "after your hunting guns"*. 
Or maybe you have swalllowed that hook, line and sinker already. The Second Amendment wasn't written so that you could go shoot Bambi's mom or dad. It was written so the people would have a "final" form of recourse to maintian Freedom if the government were to become to corrupt. The Second Amendment is the great protector of all the rest of the Bill of Rights
Study history, read the words of the Fathers in the Federalist Papers. 
GPSmike in your case don't bother! *You have defeated yourself from within.*

The dismantling of our Fourth Amendment rights will lead down a dark and ugly path in the not to distant future.
*Unless more people wake up,exercise their First Amendment Rights to speak out against or assemble in nonviolent protest NOW!*


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei said:


> And then they will convince you that they are not* "after your hunting guns"*.
> Or maybe you have swalllowed that hook, line and sinker already. The Second Amendment wasn't written so that you could go shoot Bambi's mom or dad. It was written so the people would have a "final" form of recourse to maintian Freedom if the government were to become to corrupt. The Second Amendment is the great protector of all the rest of the Bill of Rights
> Study history, read the words of the Fathers in the Federalist Papers.
> GPSmike in your case don't bother! *You have defeated yourself from within.*
> ...


Ok NDeaglei, I'll just go lay by my dish and concider myself defeated. lol :thumb: Because you told me to! :down:


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei, I got a question for you?

Have you only become a member here to be active in the Hot topics forum?

Or is NDeaglei just your alias? and you post on the non hot topics stuff with a different screen name?

If so, I think your far more defeated then I will ever be!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

NDeaglei I have to go do a little Christmas shopping today, but when I find time I will write something up on the political form about judicial tyranny. In 1896 Harvard started using case study to settle law disputes rather than the constitution and it has severely undermined the constitution. Our first amendment says that "congress shall make no laws regarding religion" and the supreme court upheld that as late as 1952. Since then they have made a false separation of church and state. If you don't study these things you don't appreciate the constitution, or understand we are loosing freedom.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Why doesn't any one cry about getting scanned when going to a Twins or Vikes game? I have had the wand passed over me every time I have gone to the dome. Just like getting scanned before I get on a plane. No big deal. You are not giving up any freedoms by getting scanned. Either get scanned and get on the plane or go home and buy a ticket for the train(or boat). That is your freedom right there. You have the freedom to choose to fly or not to fly. Thinking terrorists all fit one profile is stupid. You don't think the terrorists don't know that, and are recruiting people who don't match that profile??? How can you tell I am a muslim or christian????? Just by looking at me.....I think not. I have seen muslims that have lighter skin than I do after an ND winter. Times are changing, the USA isn't what it was, and never will be. Some of that is good, most is bad, but we have to deal with it and adapt to it, or we will be run over.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

GSPMIKE said:


> NDeaglei, I got a question for you?
> 
> Have you only become a member here to be active in the Hot topics forum?
> 
> ...


This is it! One screen name. 
I read many other posts about fishing, hunting, etc, etc. etc, etc. etc, etc. I truly enjoy reading!
Now is there a violation of *your* Bill of Rights if I do enjoy posting where I feel like posting? 
Maybe in the not so distant future I will feel like posting about ice fishing, coyote hunting, deer hunting, elk hunting, moose hunting, gunsmithing, reloading, camping, boating, outdoor survial, woodworking, jerky recipes, sausage making, fly fishing, etc, etc, etc, etc. 
For now I enjoy reading others experiences about the outdoors. 
*Try to sit back and just enjoy the great informational posts this site provides for everyone's enjoyment. *


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Savage260 said:


> Why doesn't any one cry about getting scanned when going to a Twins or Vikes game? I have had the wand passed over me every time I have gone to the dome. Just like getting scanned before I get on a plane. No big deal.


Not sure where you have been Savage260, but they are not talking about that kind of scan. No they don't have the full body scans they are talking about at the Twins or Vikes games. Most everyone was ok with that. I do understand the view of those who fly a lot, especially the pilots and attendants. I wonder how much they tested the effects of these body scanners over time. I don't have a problem with going through the scanners, but do have a problem with my kids having to do the same.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei said:


> GSPMIKE said:
> 
> 
> > NDeaglei, I got a question for you?
> ...


Nope, no violation big fella.

It just seemed odd that one would have so much to say in the Hot Topics Area and nothing to say anywhere else.

I suspected that you were using a different screen name so you could have your freedom of speech and not jepordize another screen name where people might think different of you because of political views. Thats all. If if you were no big deal, you have every right to do so.

But I suspected that because, I am a defeated person who has surrendered to terrorists. oke:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Heck of a reach there Mike. It makes no difference and there is no rule that you have to participate in any or all forums. It's up to each person as to what they choose.



> no violation big fella


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

The scans are not the same!?!?! You don't say? Really? Of course they are not the same, but the point you missed out on is that you don't give up any more freedom doing one than the other, but no one cries about the scan at the dome. I don't know the long term health risks of scans, but I do know the short term health risks of a bomb or crashing a jet into a building. I'll take the scan.

And, no, that isn't a stretch, people have more than one screen name quitea bit so friends that know them online as one name don't know them as another. They can get away with saying things they normally wouldn't that way. Not saying this is the case here, just that it isn't uncommon at all.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Longshot said:


> Heck of a reach there Mike. It makes no difference and there is no rule that you have to participate in any or all forums. It's up to each person as to what they choose.
> 
> 
> 
> > no violation big fella


It was something "I" suspected he may be doing, he claims he is not. O'well, my suspicion was wrong.

I haven't claimed there is a rule or a difference, have I? I'm also *not* saying that he would be unwelcome here if he only participated in the Hot Topics area, just thought it was weird that one would only choose too only post in the hot topics area of such a wonderful web site.

As for my reach and quoting my "No violation big fella" ??? Whats up?


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Well savage260, its not a problem here.

I have all the freedom of speech I need with one sign-on name. 
Doing it any other way seems to me like a flaw in personality and basicly dishonest.

*Its sort of like voting twice.* :bop:

Be Real Men use one sign-on name!


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Savage260 said:


> And, no, that isn't a stretch, people have more than one screen name quitea bit so friends that know them online as one name don't know them as another. They can get away with saying things they normally wouldn't that way. Not saying this is the case here, just that it isn't uncommon at all.


*BINGO!*

Done it myself on another website, but not for fear of being personally being disliked, losing an E-firend or offending anyone. I did it to protect my employment status and the company I work for and still be able to offer advise to people. :thumb:


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei said:


> Well savage260, its not a problem here.
> 
> I have all the freedom of speech I need with one sign-on name.
> Doing it any other way seems to me like a flaw in personality and basicly dishonest.
> ...


O geeze, cant wait to see what you have to say about my comment of savage's quote. uke:


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

GSPMIKE said:


> NDeaglei said:
> 
> 
> > Well savage260, its not a problem here.
> ...


GPSMike, Its a sorry state when you have to do that to protect your employment. I will rephrase my earlier post.
*
Real Men should not be forced to hide their opionons to protect their jobs.*

I hope that all will be well for you, Always!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why doesn't any one cry about getting scanned when going to a Twins or Vikes game? I have had the wand passed over me every time I have gone to the dome. Just like getting scanned before I get on a plane. No big deal. You are not giving up any freedoms by getting scanned.


I would not worry as much if it wasn't power hungry socialist in power that think the constitution is a living document.

Actually you are giving up freedom, and the head of homeland security said "it violates the fourth amendment, but it's necessary". I think I said that before, but you must have missed it. Now all they have to do is decide that a violation of the second amendment is necessary. If necessity justifies violation of one amendment it can justify violation of any of them.

There is a difference in the scanners. One is a metal detector and the other is Xray. One has a frequency that will not penetrate, the other penetrates a short distance. One reflects while one penetrates. Most reflective frequencies are never considered to have a possible carcinogenic affect while penetrating Xray we protect ourselves with led aprons if we are around it for other than our own medical needs. Metal detection uses a sound frequency while Xray is actual radiation.



> Factors that determine biological effects:
> •Dose rate
> •Total dose received
> •Energy of the radiation
> ...


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Plainsman, Yelling fire in a crowded building is against the law. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. It is "necessary" for public safety. Go buy an Tommy gun in full auto.... unless you have a license you can't, legally. Again in the name of public safety. Nowhere in the bill of rights do any of us have the right to fly in an airplane. If you don't want to be scanned go for the pat down. I know when I fly to Africa this spring I will be scanned but my kids likely will opt for the pat down. Radiation and kids don't mix too well in my opinion. I will however feel much more safe on the plane for 17 hours from Dulles to J-berg.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Radiation and kids don't mix too well in my opinion.


Radiation and anyone planning on reproducing don't mix well.  I suppose a son with three eyes may spot game better, but six fingers could get tangled in the trigger. 

I understand what your saying, but I also do and don't like it. It does violate the fourth amendment. I think not letting us buy a Tommy Gun required an act of congress to change things legally. If congress didn't they should have, or the ban is unconstitutional. I would just like to do things the right way.

I'm reading of TSA people acting to stupid to many times. Day after day they keep doing dumb things. They have been very lax on background checks for these employees.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

swift said:


> Plainsman, Yelling fire in a crowded building is against the law. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. It is "necessary" for public safety. Go buy an Tommy gun in full auto.... unless you have a license you can't, legally. Again in the name of public safety. Nowhere in the bill of rights do any of us have the right to fly in an airplane. If you don't want to be scanned go for the pat down. I know when I fly to Africa this spring I will be scanned but my kids likely will opt for the pat down. Radiation and kids don't mix too well in my opinion. I will however feel much more safe on the plane for 17 hours from Dulles to J-berg.


* "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
*
1919 court case. That word Falsely carries a lot of weight.

* Now if the theatre is on fire, slip quietly out the door and let everyone else burn? *


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

NDeaglei said:


> GSPMIKE said:
> 
> 
> > NDeaglei said:
> ...


 :beer: You amuse me! thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Real Men use one sign-on name!


I'll tell you what, when I worked for the government I used one name, but I was darn careful and most had no idea who Plainsman was. Mostly because a conservative working for the government is about as rare as frog fur. When you work for the government you give up some freedoms that a regular citizen has. That should not happen with private companies, but it does. Lets give these guys a little slack on that one. They deserve our sympathy not our scorn. That said I don't like the guys who burn their bridges with others on here so start with another name, or worse yet try a couple different names to make it look like they have people agreeing with them. I know of one instance of that happening. 

As far as the scanners I actually understand both sides of the argument. I don't like loosing freedom, but we have. I hate this over used cliche, but it's a slippery slope. I have to ask myself do I like security or freedom more. Do I give up freedom for security, or like our soldiers do I risk some to keep freedom? I can't remember who this quote was from, but it was one of our famouse Americans, and he said "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither".


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I am still waiting to hear how walking through a scanner is losing freedom. You are still free to talk, walk, have a drink,ect, and still free to get on the plane, unless you have a bomb up your nose, or else where. I don't see a loss of freedom. I have had more exposure to x ray than most people(just a guess, but pretty sure) and producing healthy, mostly normal kids hasn't been a problem.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

If you think the radiation from these scanners is in no way a problem, here is some interesting reading;

You can find the full report and concerns on this link;
http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked ... ation.html



> Here are the highlights of the letter along with my comments and explanations:
> 
> "We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary
> screening step for all air travel passengers."
> ...


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > Real Men use one sign-on name!
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what, when I worked for the government I used one name, but I was darn careful and most had no idea who Plainsman was. Mostly because a conservative working for the government is about as rare as frog fur. When you work for the government you give up some freedoms that a regular citizen has. That should not happen with private companies, but it does. Lets give these guys a little slack on that one. They deserve our sympathy not our scorn. That said I don't like the guys who burn their bridges with others on here so start with another name, or worse yet try a couple different names to make it look like they have people agreeing with them. I know of one instance of that happening.
> ...


Thanks Plainsman...

I think I have said I understand both sides too. But its so much deeper than this little freedom people claim we are loosing.

I think there is a big gray area on the quote you have there "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither". You may see it differently than I, but when I enter an airport. I have surrendered my means of protection besides my bare hands. I no longer have self protection and now have to rely on the security of the Airport.

If you want to argue loss of freedom, its starts ages ago, long before most of us were born. When we lost most ways of protecting our selves, aside from taking classes for having a concealed weapon, or our own self defense on our own property, We have relied on local and national law enforcement for years to protect us as soon as we enter the public. This is so old of an issue, it wont change. When they try to make it impossible or extremely hard for me or you to protect my property or my family , where it is legal for me to conceal a weapon. Your can be damn sure, I`ll be standing beside you in protest. Violent or Non.

The major point I`m trying to make, is why all the fuss now?

Security screening at the airport is nothing new, they simply have a new tool. Yes radiation is invasive, I have done no research on how much the scanners put out, but I will venture to guess its near equal to the amount we are subject to on a day to day basis.

I was venting on my original post, about the amount of people that made an absolute fool of this nation, by stripping down and threatening officials about not touching them in the private areas, then the media playing this for the entire country to stew over and be influenced by. The news makes me sick, there are thousands of good things that happen everyday that would make better people out of us if we let that influence us, but ratings are money and money rules over good decisions.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Longshot said:


> If you think the radiation from these scanners is in no way a problem, here is some interesting reading;
> 
> You can find the full report and concerns on this link;
> http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked ... ation.html


The person doing the "Translations" is so biased its not even funny.

They sound no more educated than you or I.

I`ll have to do my own research, cause I find this propaganda. Sorry, not cutting on you, just the source where you found this.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I agree to a point GSPMIKE. The person giving the translation know nothing more than you or I, but I will give credit to those who wrote the letter. The full letter is on that site with a link to the PDF. http://www.naturalnews.com/files/TSA_Na ... anners.pdf

My biggest problem is that there is a lot to do with these scanners that have not been tested.



> "In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,
> ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation
> quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]
> has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that
> ...


The ket points in the letter from medical staff and radiology experts made in the letter makes me wonder how much they tested the effects on the public and especially those who have to use them almost daily.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Longshot said:


> I agree to a point GSPMIKE. The person giving the translation know nothing more than you or I, but I will give credit to those who wrote the letter. The full letter is on that site with a link to the PDF. http://www.naturalnews.com/files/TSA_Na ... anners.pdf
> 
> My biggest problem is that there is a lot to do with these scanners that have not been tested.
> 
> ...


I have not read the full letter, I will have to.

The non "translated" parts do look to be written by someone "for" the scanners that are openly atmitting they based the safety on an educated guess and not testing. "Looks good on paper approach". Its a bad approach, I hope testing can prove the scanners to be safe, they work well, and would speed up passenger screening if proved by and indepented researcher to be safe.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

That letter was filled with a lot of "might" and "maybe" so it doesn't impress me as being very good......unless or until they prove their translations. The plane you get on "might" lose a wing and crash in flames, a terrorist might blow up the plane with a bomb up his nose, or a meteor might take the plane down. Lots of "might" and "maybe" in every day life.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am still waiting to hear how walking through a scanner is losing freedom.


Even those implementing it admitted it violated the fourth amendment. People have died defending our constitution, don't you think loosing the freedoms that it guarantees is a true loss of freedom. Even if you don't mind your naked rear on screen doesn't the violation of the American constitution bother you?


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > I am still waiting to hear how walking through a scanner is losing freedom.
> 
> 
> Even those implementing it admitted it violated the fourth amendment. People have died defending our constitution, don't you think loosing the freedoms that it guarantees is a true loss of freedom. Even if you don't mind your naked rear on screen doesn't the violation of the American constitution bother you?


Plainsman -

What makes walking through a Body Scanner a violation to the 4th amendment?

No one made a stink about walking through a metal detector, being patted down, questioned, taking off your belt and shoes, not being able to bring open liquid containers, nail files, swiss army knives, being wanded.

Again I`ll state, WHY ALL THE FUSS NOW!?!?!

If walking through a body scanner is a violation, then any other means of screening are as well.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it


It's a shame people are getting out of school without knowing these things. When I was in school we had to know this by the fifth grade. I think they stopped it because they don't want people to know. Invading your privacy is much more of a violation than checking your suitcase or carry on luggage. I am more disappointed that people today do not understand the violation of the constitution than I am about the scan.

Also the men checking me and women checking women is constantly being violated. Many women have come forward now and testified to the fact that some of these guys are picking them out of a line of people simply because they have large breasts or are attractive. Now if you don't understand try to imagine that was your daughter that three guys crowded in to look at the image. If someone wants to voluntarily strip for you to take pictures that is their business, but if your forced that is different.

Any form of radiation is more dangerous than radio wave frequency that metal detectors use. At this time we have no idea how safe or how harmful these scanners are. I would not go through one if I was still thinking about kids.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

> United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.


So I guess it all comes back to, what you think is unreasonable vs. what I think is unreasonable. :beer:

I really wasn't looking for a excerpt from the constitution. I know what its about. It was 9th grade actually, Mr. Pearson. Nice guy.

Frankly I dont see that searching my suitcase is any less or more of a violation that seeing an image of my body.

You feel differently...

Want to know what awesome??? Neither of us will be hung or procecuted for having different opinions.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Again I`ll state, WHY ALL THE FUSS NOW!?!?!


The fuss, at least as far as I'm concerned, is what I'm surprised to see hasn't been discussed in detail here yet. And that is *NO ONE* dares offend muslims or other specific ethnicities that could lead to cries of "foul" for racial profiling, and heaven forbid we tread on any of their "rights", yet the default response is to infringe on *OUR* rights, then further exacerbate the disparity by accusing us of being unreasonable when _*we*_ cry foul!

If these efforts that admittedly violate the 4th amendment are to be excused in the name of safety and security, why is anything else (profiling) that would increase the probablity of preventing an attack off the table just due to polical correctness......

...and why aren't even _*MORE*_ people screaming for answers?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Savage260 said:


> That letter was filled with a lot of "might" and "maybe" so it doesn't impress me as being very good......unless or until they prove their translations. The plane you get on "might" lose a wing and crash in flames, a terrorist might blow up the plane with a bomb up his nose, or a meteor might take the plane down. Lots of "might" and "maybe" in every day life.


There is a lot of "might" and "maybe" about these scanners and that is my point if you didn't catch that Savage260. It also bothers me that any radioactive device is to be considered medical equipment that falls under the FDA for testing and regulation. Why is it that they can bypass this system, but you or I cannot? Isn't the publics health important?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, if the fourth amendment isn't that important to you how do you feel about the first amendment? Germany and France are putting pressure on us right now to get rid of our first amendment. They say that 90% of the radical Muslim internet sites that are preaching hate are located here in the United States because of our freedom of speech. They had the equivalent of our first amendment and are ditching it because the Muslims are preaching hate and terrorism in the European schools. I say keep our first amendment and have another Crusade.

So are you guys still thinking it's ok to dump on the constitution. It will have a domino affect. Don't forget old buddy Obama has already referred to the constitution as a hindrance. I guess I would ask a hindrance to what?


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> Well, if the fourth amendment isn't that important to you how do you feel about the first amendment? Germany and France are putting pressure on us right now to get rid of our first amendment. They say that 90% of the radical Muslim internet sites that are preaching hate are located here in the United States because of our freedom of speech. They had the equivalent of our first amendment and are ditching it because the Muslims are preaching hate and terrorism in the European schools. I say keep our first amendment and have another Crusade.
> 
> So are you guys still thinking it's ok to dump on the constitution. It will have a domino affect. Don't forget old buddy Obama has already referred to the constitution as a hindrance. I guess I would ask a hindrance to what?


Have I said that the 4th amendment isn't importaint to me?

Nope...

This isn't the same world that was around when the constitution was written. It may have to be modified without ebolishing the sole purpose entirely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Have I said that the 4th amendment isn't importaint to me?


I don't think so. Some have made out like it's no big deal though, and it's a huge step to take. I think the liberals would like to see the second amendment gone. The hate speech political correct junk is also threatening the first amendment. Like you I would like to be safe, but I'm questioning what we have to do, and what I am willing to give up. Some are just to flippant about it. Keep in mind I'm over 60 and grew up in a generation that's a little more modest. We don't exactly like the idea of people looking at us in the buff. 
Prove to me the the radiation is safe, and make it automatic so my privacy isn't violated and I'll be a lot happier.

What did you think about France and Germany wanting us to do away with our first amendment?


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> What did you think about France and Germany wanting us to do away with our first amendment?


Another hugely gray subject.

Everyone knows this one as freedom of speach, seperation between church and state, and the right to assemble peacefully.

Again since it was etablished 220 years ago, alot has changed.

Do I agree with france and germany wanting to do away with it? Nope

Modify it like countless other interpritaitions over the years to fit our changing world/culture? Yes

Again I think they should not completely put the original text to the sideline, but more use it as a good starting point.

Our ages are at least seperated by 30 years, this is probably good for both of us to debate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Everyone knows this one as freedom of speach, seperation between church and state, and the right to assemble peacefully.


 :shake: God help us. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. In 1896 Harvard, which by the way was started by 12 pastors) started teaching case law. Prior to that everything was decided by the constitution. Anyway the right to school prayer was last upheld by the supreme court in 1952. I think it was 1962 that they struck it down. The constitution was not followed. However, those who don't know better think the supreme court followed the constitution. They didn't and every few years we get another activist judge who legislates from the bench. I just watched a presentation on restoring America where they brought that very thing up and called it judicial tyranny. 
Read the first amendment. The only thing it says is that congress shall make no laws establishing religion. They didn't want government telling them what religion they had to belong to. They actually left the states much leeway in regard to religion, but the supreme court is actually acting unconstitutionally. 
You go find a copy of the constitution, read the fist amendment, and post it on here. I have a copy in my house at all times. It's going to get worse if following generations are going to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Read.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Sorry, I'm trying to dig this stuff up from memory. I can make mistakes. I can learn from it.

I`ll go read it.

You must have the constitiution tucked under your pillow.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"There is a lot of "might" and "maybe" about these scanners and that is my point if you didn't catch that Savage260."

I guess I am confused. It seems like you were very anti scanner over some what ifs. If you are so worried about the might and maybe of the scanners, do hold your cell phone to your ear? Do you not get x rays or ct scans at the Dr? Do you not worry about all the forms of radiation passing through your body every second of the day? It just seems like a knee jerk reaction to scanners when there are thousands of other things much more dangerous in the "might" and "maybe" department that you face every day. Heck, you "might" screw up on a hand load and blow your arm off next time you fire your newest rifle, but that doesn't stop you from doing it.

It seems there is just too much crying about every thing. People cry about the scanners, they cry about searches, they cry about profiling, and they cry when a horrible event happens, and blame the government for not protecting them. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If you don't want the scan, don't get on the plane. Air travel isn't a "freedom" and if you don't want to be searched find another mode of transportation.

I quite honestly don't see it as a violation of my rights. Like Mike said, what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable"?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You must have the constitiution tucked under your pillow.


Close, right on top my gun safe.  
Thank you for taking this serious. Sometimes it's hard to know how hard to push on these things. Not hard enough and people will not pay attention, to hard and you offend them. I'm happy your going to go read it.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Savage260, you list varying sources of radiation that we can encounter. That is correct, but there are different types of radiation. X-rays and CT scans are done to people all the time as you mentioned, but in all those cases they do not recommend certain people to use these tests or in very limited numbers. Pregnant women are not to have x-rays or Ct scans nor do they recommend it to nursing mothers. Children are more sensitive to radiation, they should have a CT study only if it is absolutely necessary. At least with the CT scans they have found that no radiation is left in the body after the test.

As I said before, why must all these other radiological instruments need to be tested and regulated to amount of use, but our TSA is exempt from it. I guess you don't mind giving the government a pass. Driving down a public street in a car or truck isn't a right either Savage260, so are you willing to give up your Second Amendment right to have a firearm in your vehicle? "It's for public safety you know, so please leave your handgun at home?" What's next, Savage260, that you are willing to give up in the name of public safety?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"why must all these other radiological instruments need to be tested and regulated to amount of use, but our TSA is exempt from it."

This I am in 100% agreement with, and it wouldn't take much for them to regulate it. Although if they do will folks like you and plainsman really accept what they say? The FDA is a government organization, so can they be trusted?

Throwing the right to have a gun in my vehicle is apples and oranges. Nice try with the "public safety" thing though. We are not talking about carrying a gun on a plane, we are talking about walking through a scanner which doesn't take away any more rights than the wand at the dome.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> We are not talking about carrying a gun on a plane


Too bad.......would be the safest air travel I could imagine :wink:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"Too bad.......would be the safest air travel I could imagine"

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on who gets to carry the guns! I have seen some people get pretty drunk on planes. Don't think I would want them waving a pistol around because they forgot the peanuts, or because some one bumped into them on the way to the bathroom! :beer:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

A common discussion among my non-gun-friendly "friends". But my feelings are the same. Since I believe there is more good than evil, and good will always win when given a fair chance, I say let em ALL have guns. I'd rather a few idiots *and* all the others have guns.. than just the idiots


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I suppose you guys have already got this email. I got it last week and again today. I hope the photo is large enough to read.


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> I suppose you guys have already got this email. I got it last week and again today. I hope the photo is large enough to read.


I like it!

My luck is I would fly the day after a pot of chili.... and POOF!


----------



## jrp267 (Dec 17, 2007)

Plainsman it was Ben Franklin who said "he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves nither"


----------



## Mark_ferguson77 (Mar 5, 2011)

Its really very awesome topic about the body Scanner and the other view on it also very nice.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Actually the fourth amendment is more geared toward illegal search by a government agency. While the Government may be directing the airports to do it, since the airport is not a government agency THAT is how they get around it.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

If you think since the airports are doing the searches it's NOT the government...who do you think will get involved immediately if you tell the airport you don't feel like doing it?


----------

