Airport security should return to pre-911 levels for boarding planes. Anything more is just nonsense.
IMHO it should just go away - and people who can legally carry firearms at the departure and arrival points should be able to carry them on the plane (if the airline agrees).
This idiocy got started back in the '50s or so in response to hijacking of planes to bypass cold-war travel blockades (especially to Cuba) and a few murderers-for-insurance who blew up whole planes in order to get one victim in the very early days of air travel. It got a boost when a few hijackings-for-ransom by crooks and revolutionary organizations looking for funding were successful.
Hijacking for blockade bypass mostly went away when Cuba started treating such hijackers as crooks while routes through other countries (such as Canada) opened up. Bombs for insurance were always few in number and in luggage - and are no longer a big temptation now that airplanes are reliable and forensics is advanced.
As for hijacking for ransom or to use as a terrorist weapon: The instructions for passengers in such a situation HAD been to be nice sheep and wait for rescue (from governments with official positions of never yielding to hostage-takers). After the (first three!) 9/11 hijacker teams showed that the hostages were already toast if nothing was done, the passengers of the fourth plane chose to resist, unarmed, and defeated the hijackers (though they still died in the action or the resulting crash). In the future, such resistance would be immediate rather than after the takeover. And a salting of armed passengers would make it more likely to succeed WITHOUT crashing the plane or killing all on board.
So the continued violation of our fourth and second amendment rights in airports and on airplanes is not just useless, but counterproductive.
= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."
That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may co