4um: 46% Say Airport Security Procedures Not Strict Enough [Pinch Up!]

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: 46% Say Airport Security Procedures Not Strict Enough [Pinch Up!]
Source: Rasmussen Reports
URL Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub ... y_procedures_not_strict_enough
Published: Dec 31, 2009
Author: N/A
Post Date: 2009-12-31 11:46:22 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 869
Comments: 30

46% Say Airport Security Procedures Not Strict Enough
Monday, December 28, 2009
Following the failed terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner landing in Detroit on Christmas Day, Americans are a lot less critical of airport security procedures.
In fact, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of U.S. voters believe current airport security procedures are not strict enough, a 13-point increase from April 2008. Just 11% say they are too strict.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters believe the current level of airport security is about right. Women feel more strongly than men that U.S. airport security procedures are not strict enough.
Republicans are more inclined to agree than Democrats and voters not affiliated with either major party.
Click for Full Text!
Poster Comment:
If "health care" could get passed on half the support, pinch up that sphincter!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#7. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
Americans are a lot less critical of airport security procedures

Stop the insanity!! Yeah, more goobermint restrictions will save the day. That's the ticket. More waste and delay. Bring on the bogus security schmucks peeking into our luggage and conducting full body scans will do the trick. Take your shoes off, leave your shampoo at home and lick nanny state boots.
Solve this issue with simplicity. Every pilot packing heat and schooled in using his/her firearm. I'd even go so far as arming the stewardesses. Cheaper and far more effective than adding on more nanny state to regulate the majority of law abiding citizens.

abraxas posted on 2009-12-31 15:52:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Solve this issue with simplicity. Every pilot packing heat and schooled in using his/her firearm. I'd even go so far as arming the stewardesses. Cheaper and far more effective than adding on more nanny state to regulate the majority of law abiding citizens.

Why just arm the flight attendants? I believe that anyone who can legally own a gun--21 or older, no criminal record and no record of mental illness--should be allowed to bring their own handgun on a plane. It was not all that many years ago that they could. Just in my lifetime you could order guns through the mail and no one thought anything of it.

James Deffenbach posted on 2009-12-31 16:01:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
Why just arm the flight attendants? I believe that anyone who can legally own a gun--21 or older, no criminal record and no record of mental illness--should be allowed to bring their own handgun on a plane. It was not all that many years ago that they could. Just in my lifetime you could order guns through the mail and no one thought anything of it.

Because I believe that a private airline has a right to defend their property as they see fit. Arming the employees is the best way to accomplish this goal. They fly inter-state and international where the CCW laws no longer apply for the average citizen. Also, they would need to have bullets that can kill but not blow a hole in the plane--special order. Your average Joe would not have this sort of bullet handy, nor even be aware of the dangers of blowing a hole in the plane.
I'm for my 2A all the way, James. You know that. But, let's face it, not all who carry are bright enough to be trusted at 30K feet in an aircraft because they will not necessarily understand that the bullet in the pistol could bring that plane down.

abraxas posted on 2009-12-31 16:23:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#12. To: abraxas (#9)
a private airline has a right to defend their property as they see fit

After 9/11, didn't many airlines take bigtime $ from Congress to keep them out of banqruptcy? Those that did so are no longer "private" airlines. Also airlines require licensing by the FAA so they need to abide by gov't requirements or licensing might become a hassle.
That's not to justify gov't meddling in private airlines' business but only to point out why airlines "choose" to comply with gov't regs and requirements.

scrapper2 posted on 2009-12-31 16:49:38 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#13. To: scrapper2 (#12)
After 9/11, didn't many airlines take bigtime $ from Congress to keep them out of banqruptcy? Those that did so are no longer "private" airlines

I forgot about that hand out, Scrapper. So many hand outs, so little time. What the hell is still private anymore? We should have let them all fail and refused to subsidize.....but that's just not the Fascist Way.

abraxas posted on 2009-12-31 16:55:49 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 13.
There are no replies to Comment # 13.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um