-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Airplane Legal?
- Thread starter csbjr
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
No, thats right, because they profile people to the max before they let anyone board, let no one on with ANY weapons, and have armed agents on every flight. In other words they get it done but they do not obey the standards of the US in profiling and how they search, pick people out and treat people. They also do not care about anyones rights, you have none, even less than none.
So to argue they get it done and we should be able to as well, then decry the way we are treated at our domestic gates and disarmed [ like they do ]really can't be had in both flavors.
Try getting on an EL Al flight with a knife or weapon. Not likely, and in fact they'll likely arrest you, just like the new TSA rules where they can arrest if you even bring it to the gate as well. They don't, but they can. More in line with them that way as well.
They have had to deal with it for a lot longer than us, they have been successful on their flights because you have no weapons on board, you are screened to the max, denied to fly if they don't like your looks.
And thats what has to be done to prevent them from boarding with something that can take the plane down or can be used to achieve the same effect.
If you don't want to be treated like cattle, don't fly. Just like the Isreali's or anyone traveling through their airports bound for anywhere.
You don't see the Isrealis letting their citizens or passengers in their airports carry weapons onboard, thats not how they solved their airline problems with terrorists.
Brownie
So to argue they get it done and we should be able to as well, then decry the way we are treated at our domestic gates and disarmed [ like they do ]really can't be had in both flavors.
Try getting on an EL Al flight with a knife or weapon. Not likely, and in fact they'll likely arrest you, just like the new TSA rules where they can arrest if you even bring it to the gate as well. They don't, but they can. More in line with them that way as well.
They have had to deal with it for a lot longer than us, they have been successful on their flights because you have no weapons on board, you are screened to the max, denied to fly if they don't like your looks.
And thats what has to be done to prevent them from boarding with something that can take the plane down or can be used to achieve the same effect.
If you don't want to be treated like cattle, don't fly. Just like the Isreali's or anyone traveling through their airports bound for anywhere.
You don't see the Isrealis letting their citizens or passengers in their airports carry weapons onboard, thats not how they solved their airline problems with terrorists.
Brownie
Brownie,
What seems to be touching a nerve? You seem to have a real problem with people expressing opinions which differ from yours. Do not preach to me and expect a convert.
Most of what you say is true. I don't have to like it.
My original question in starting this thread was to get ideas on legal alternatives to perform simple tasks while traveling by air.
I don't understand your insistance on using that question as a platform for some political agenda.
What seems to be touching a nerve? You seem to have a real problem with people expressing opinions which differ from yours. Do not preach to me and expect a convert.
Most of what you say is true. I don't have to like it.
My original question in starting this thread was to get ideas on legal alternatives to perform simple tasks while traveling by air.
I don't understand your insistance on using that question as a platform for some political agenda.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
I have responded to others complaints about being disarmed at the ports and TSA searches/restrictions.
Stating views and facts is not trying to convert, or otherwise except to point out certain fallacies being stated by others.
YMMV of course. Political agenda?
Where were all these people before 9-11 when no one carried a gun on the plane and it was accepted due to the restrictions put in place after the initial rash of hijackings in the previous decades.
I didn't see many posts bitchin about rights to carry a gun on the plane. Now with 9-11 and more restrictions others feel the need to complain about not having to further disarm.
Brownie
Stating views and facts is not trying to convert, or otherwise except to point out certain fallacies being stated by others.
YMMV of course. Political agenda?
Where were all these people before 9-11 when no one carried a gun on the plane and it was accepted due to the restrictions put in place after the initial rash of hijackings in the previous decades.
I didn't see many posts bitchin about rights to carry a gun on the plane. Now with 9-11 and more restrictions others feel the need to complain about not having to further disarm.
Brownie
Brownie,
Don't misunderstand. I am not protesting your views. This topic has caused some interesting discussion. I agree with most of your comments, but do not like the direction this is going.
It is airplanes now, what later. You use the gun analogy. A gun is primarily a weapon. Offensive or defensive, it is still primarily a weapon. Sure, guns are used to harvest food, but not when carried into an airport or shopping mall. I consider a knife to be a tool first, weapon second.
Concerning your choosing not to fly, but drive and create the opportunity to carry what you want. Be very careful. Remember Morton Grove? You can now be arrested in Boston for having a blade over two inches in your posession even if you are just passing through. Grocery stores, sporting events, restaurants? If the list gets long enough, you will be so limited in where you can carry a knife that it will become impractical. Ask someone from Australia or other countries where there are severe restrictions on knife carry how they got to that point. It never happens all at once.
Don't misunderstand. I am not protesting your views. This topic has caused some interesting discussion. I agree with most of your comments, but do not like the direction this is going.
It is airplanes now, what later. You use the gun analogy. A gun is primarily a weapon. Offensive or defensive, it is still primarily a weapon. Sure, guns are used to harvest food, but not when carried into an airport or shopping mall. I consider a knife to be a tool first, weapon second.
Concerning your choosing not to fly, but drive and create the opportunity to carry what you want. Be very careful. Remember Morton Grove? You can now be arrested in Boston for having a blade over two inches in your posession even if you are just passing through. Grocery stores, sporting events, restaurants? If the list gets long enough, you will be so limited in where you can carry a knife that it will become impractical. Ask someone from Australia or other countries where there are severe restrictions on knife carry how they got to that point. It never happens all at once.
Gollnick
Musical Director
- Joined
- Mar 22, 1999
- Messages
- 29,258
A lot of people like to raise the El Al example (every time we do this thread, someone raises it). But what they forget is that more people fly through Chicago O'Hare in one week than fly on El Al in a whole year. Nobody flies domestically in Israel. The country isn't big enough. In the time it takes the flight attendents to give the lecture about the oxygen masks that drop from the compartment above your head, you could drive from anywhere to anywhere in Israel.
But, there are so many people who fly from Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington everyday that we have three airlines that offer service practically on-the-hour between these cities on weekdays. There are many people who make that commute every day. That's why we call these "commuter flights." From Portland, New York is, realistically, a five day drive. But it's a five hour flight.
Boeing makes a special version of the 747, the 747 Commuter, that's specifically made for routes like Boston/New York, San Francisco/LA, etc. It's the maximum seats with the minimum comfort, but you're only gonna be in it for a few minutes.
There are very few other countries in the world with domestic air travel on the same scale as the US. Tokyo/Osaka is another big 747 Commuter route.
Because of the size of our country, the lack of passenger rail service, and the popularity, indeed the necessity, of air travel in the US, the security problem is orders of magnitude bigger than El Al faces. Unfortunately, the El Al solution simply can not be practically scaled up to address our needs.
BTW, I'm told that the best way to travel on El Al is to arrive with your clothing and stuff in shopping bags and your suitcases empty and just let them pack for you.
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 327
Here we go. For some reason you seem to believe that by declaring certain items illegal and attempting to remove those items from people that you will both succeed and keep the "whole communities" safe. You are wrong.Hijacking is illegal. Didn't stop them. Murder is illegal. Happens every day. It's illegal for felons to possess firearms. Many do.
Why is it so hard for you to understand. I don't want to do "whatever I want". I have a right to defend myself. That's all I'm asking for.
This thread has gone INSANELY far off topic!!!!!
But, that happens with explosive issues like this. Disscussion is good.
Brownie, One thing I'd like to say to you , which you may take, leave, or do as you will with, is that I don't think I've ever read a post of yours where you weren't:
A- REALLY cranky!!!
and
B- Speaking (writing) in a condescending (and often confrontational) manner to anyone who expressed an opinion which did not reflect or support your own. We are all passionate about these issues, that's why most of us are here, but this is also a COMMUNITY, can't we all try to treat each other with a bit of respect?
That's all.
-John
But, that happens with explosive issues like this. Disscussion is good.
Brownie, One thing I'd like to say to you , which you may take, leave, or do as you will with, is that I don't think I've ever read a post of yours where you weren't:
A- REALLY cranky!!!
and
B- Speaking (writing) in a condescending (and often confrontational) manner to anyone who expressed an opinion which did not reflect or support your own. We are all passionate about these issues, that's why most of us are here, but this is also a COMMUNITY, can't we all try to treat each other with a bit of respect?
That's all.
-John
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Yes,
Boston now has a 2 1/2" blade restriction within the city limits since 9-11.
It's not enforced, just on the books. I'm in town most days and sometimes am over the limit. Never had one give the clip a second look, no matter what was in the pocket. Message received however about travelng through other locales, always something to consider.
I don't think declaring items illegal and keeping them off the planes will stop them. I do think the screening slows them down as they have no idea who or when something will be searched.
Not wanting to be unarmed, I'm driving.
Brownie
Boston now has a 2 1/2" blade restriction within the city limits since 9-11.
It's not enforced, just on the books. I'm in town most days and sometimes am over the limit. Never had one give the clip a second look, no matter what was in the pocket. Message received however about travelng through other locales, always something to consider.
I don't think declaring items illegal and keeping them off the planes will stop them. I do think the screening slows them down as they have no idea who or when something will be searched.
Not wanting to be unarmed, I'm driving.
Brownie
- Joined
- Mar 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,277
My point wasn't to make us exactly like Israel in regards to security on airlines. My point was, we aren't trying to improve any further and in fact are going backwards in many cases.
Also, I'm not decrying the way I am treated at the gates. Those are the rules to board a plane. I don't like how they are being carried out, but that's the way it is. What makes it worse is with our current efforts, I now have to rely on security measures that make me more helpless if someone does get on the plane with a weapon. That is the main reason I don't like to fly.
As was said before, security is mostly an illusion. If I have to rely on someone else to protect me, I want that illusion to be real freakin' convincing. It's not. So I fly very little.
Also, I'm not decrying the way I am treated at the gates. Those are the rules to board a plane. I don't like how they are being carried out, but that's the way it is. What makes it worse is with our current efforts, I now have to rely on security measures that make me more helpless if someone does get on the plane with a weapon. That is the main reason I don't like to fly.
As was said before, security is mostly an illusion. If I have to rely on someone else to protect me, I want that illusion to be real freakin' convincing. It's not. So I fly very little.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2003
- Messages
- 306
What somebody "considers" to be a tool or weapon is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it?
How about the lowly 1" blade boxcutter- That's a tool, intended for opening cardboard boxes at supermarkets... and when misused, brought four airliners into buildings and the ground just two short years ago.
What strikes me as most surprising is how short some folks memories seem to be about it.
The second most surprising thing would be seeing the idea put forth suggesting that compromises should be made in the precautions against it ever happening again, in order that some folks could preserve their imagined 'right' to carry prohibited items on a commercial carrier and in so doing, jepardise everyone else. You don't have any "right" to scream FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire, your "right' to swing your fist stops at my nose. As a society we agree to these behavior modifications to insure the greater public good.
Yes, TSA screeners do screen differently on different days and in different terminals. What the general public is perhaps not aware of is that there are daily bulletins and guidelines that come from TSA to the security stations and how those change to adapt to information the agency receives. Those aren't going to be in your newspapers, sorry.
Because we do not employ mind readers as screeners, the only safe bet is to assume there is a potential hijacker or paranoid schizophrenic trying to get on every flight, because to do any less may be permitting the scenerio of September 11 2001 to happen again- and that is something that most of us do not ever want to see, especially not because somebody "looked OK" or had to "Open a blister-Pak" for cryin' out loud.
So check that stuff in your bagage, open the phreaking CD with your fingernails, and let the professionals handle it- because believe it or not, there are a lot of hard-working, serious people trying to protect you from yourselves, and I for one am very grateful that they are, judging from some of the hair-brained, half-baked selfish concepts I had to wade through in order to get to the bottom of this thread.
Have a nice flight or drive!
How about the lowly 1" blade boxcutter- That's a tool, intended for opening cardboard boxes at supermarkets... and when misused, brought four airliners into buildings and the ground just two short years ago.
What strikes me as most surprising is how short some folks memories seem to be about it.
The second most surprising thing would be seeing the idea put forth suggesting that compromises should be made in the precautions against it ever happening again, in order that some folks could preserve their imagined 'right' to carry prohibited items on a commercial carrier and in so doing, jepardise everyone else. You don't have any "right" to scream FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire, your "right' to swing your fist stops at my nose. As a society we agree to these behavior modifications to insure the greater public good.
Yes, TSA screeners do screen differently on different days and in different terminals. What the general public is perhaps not aware of is that there are daily bulletins and guidelines that come from TSA to the security stations and how those change to adapt to information the agency receives. Those aren't going to be in your newspapers, sorry.
Because we do not employ mind readers as screeners, the only safe bet is to assume there is a potential hijacker or paranoid schizophrenic trying to get on every flight, because to do any less may be permitting the scenerio of September 11 2001 to happen again- and that is something that most of us do not ever want to see, especially not because somebody "looked OK" or had to "Open a blister-Pak" for cryin' out loud.
So check that stuff in your bagage, open the phreaking CD with your fingernails, and let the professionals handle it- because believe it or not, there are a lot of hard-working, serious people trying to protect you from yourselves, and I for one am very grateful that they are, judging from some of the hair-brained, half-baked selfish concepts I had to wade through in order to get to the bottom of this thread.
Have a nice flight or drive!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Stone knife:
I have a feeling that post's not going to be real popular.
Brownie
I have a feeling that post's not going to be real popular.
Brownie
Stone Knife,
I have already disagreed with much of your post in earlier posts of my own, so I won't repeat myself again here, but I would like to point out that:
My right to swing my fist does not stop at your nose if you were trying to HIJACK A PLANE I AM ON.
Boxcutters are only effective when they create a dissparity of force.
-John
I have already disagreed with much of your post in earlier posts of my own, so I won't repeat myself again here, but I would like to point out that:
My right to swing my fist does not stop at your nose if you were trying to HIJACK A PLANE I AM ON.
Boxcutters are only effective when they create a dissparity of force.
-John
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Ya, you take your chances.
As there is no blade length restriction in Mass., you start the day legal and run into jursidictions where it becomes a potential problem.
You hail from the state I grew up in. I should be back to gods country next year with any luck.
Brownie
As there is no blade length restriction in Mass., you start the day legal and run into jursidictions where it becomes a potential problem.
You hail from the state I grew up in. I should be back to gods country next year with any luck.
Brownie
- Joined
- Mar 19, 1999
- Messages
- 2,277
Trying to protect me from myself? Whoever is trying to that isn't doing a very good job. On a plane, I don't want to be protected from myself, I want to be protected from that guy that wants to jack it! It's also no ones business to protect me from myself. That job belongs to me and the boss of the house.
There are a lot of hard working people that are trying to make sure our flying is safe. I applaud them for their efforts and appreciate their efforts. The people that are in charge are the ones who are not doing the job they should be.
There are a lot of hard working people that are trying to make sure our flying is safe. I applaud them for their efforts and appreciate their efforts. The people that are in charge are the ones who are not doing the job they should be.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2001
- Messages
- 1,794
I suppose back in the days of our Founders, the closest thing to an airliner would have been a sailing ship.
Imagine one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence being told he couldn't take a sword, pistol or knife aboard.
I can't imagine it, unless he was captured by some enemy.
Now, we tolerate this abuse by "our government." Most people seem to think it's "normal."
Before 9/11, pocketknives on planes were not a problem.
On 9/11, they still weren't a problem.
The actual problem, if you will recall, was first, that small groups of dedicated, fanatical, semi-trained scum had a plan to take over some airliners for suicide missions. Second, and this is key to their plan, was that these passengers had been conditioned through many years of gov't advice that passivity would be the best way to survive a hijacking. In fact, many years of "crime prevention advice" had inculcated the idea that "not fighting back" was the best way to handle most violent crimes. After all, the police were our "protectors."
Now for some simple math:
Take violent, committed terrorists and combine them with passive, compliant hostages, and what do you get?
Over 3000 people murdered in a spectacular display of terror.
Now take those same terrs with boxcutters and put them on a 17th century ship with about the same ratio of terrs to passengers.
Only one thing has changed: these are 17th century passengers who are used to "taking care of business" instead of hoping an Air Marshal will save them from predation.
It would be a massacre of terrorists.
Put those same old timers on an aircraft, with nothing but some carts and boiling water for "weapons," and you'd get about the same result: a small number of dead terrs. Yes, there would probably be a few innocents killed, since the terrs acted first, but as one of them slit someone's throat, an old timer would be out of his (or possibly her) seat and counterattacking, calling for help from his brethren.
There are all kinds of good reasons to create a policy of disarming common people, and dissuading them from committing acts of violence in self-defense.
Those "good reasons" got over 3000 innocents killed on 9/11/01, and are further threatening to kill all of our freedoms, along with more people.
It is essential to keep demonizing the carry of weaponry, and even many "tools" (like pocketknives) in order to turn a once free people into slaves who depend on others for their basic needs.
Karl
Imagine one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence being told he couldn't take a sword, pistol or knife aboard.
I can't imagine it, unless he was captured by some enemy.
Now, we tolerate this abuse by "our government." Most people seem to think it's "normal."
Before 9/11, pocketknives on planes were not a problem.
On 9/11, they still weren't a problem.
The actual problem, if you will recall, was first, that small groups of dedicated, fanatical, semi-trained scum had a plan to take over some airliners for suicide missions. Second, and this is key to their plan, was that these passengers had been conditioned through many years of gov't advice that passivity would be the best way to survive a hijacking. In fact, many years of "crime prevention advice" had inculcated the idea that "not fighting back" was the best way to handle most violent crimes. After all, the police were our "protectors."
Now for some simple math:
Take violent, committed terrorists and combine them with passive, compliant hostages, and what do you get?
Over 3000 people murdered in a spectacular display of terror.
Now take those same terrs with boxcutters and put them on a 17th century ship with about the same ratio of terrs to passengers.
Only one thing has changed: these are 17th century passengers who are used to "taking care of business" instead of hoping an Air Marshal will save them from predation.
It would be a massacre of terrorists.
Put those same old timers on an aircraft, with nothing but some carts and boiling water for "weapons," and you'd get about the same result: a small number of dead terrs. Yes, there would probably be a few innocents killed, since the terrs acted first, but as one of them slit someone's throat, an old timer would be out of his (or possibly her) seat and counterattacking, calling for help from his brethren.
There are all kinds of good reasons to create a policy of disarming common people, and dissuading them from committing acts of violence in self-defense.
Those "good reasons" got over 3000 innocents killed on 9/11/01, and are further threatening to kill all of our freedoms, along with more people.
It is essential to keep demonizing the carry of weaponry, and even many "tools" (like pocketknives) in order to turn a once free people into slaves who depend on others for their basic needs.
Karl
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,277
My memory is not short about that at all. You can be sure I remember the tragedy that was 9-11-01, but in reality box cutters have little to do with it. If I gave you a box cutter and told you to attack 100 unarmed people who were WILLING to fight back...are you gonna like those odds? Conditioning to rely on others to protect you and to not act in your own defense is what allowed the tragic events of 9-11 to occur.
Firstly, my right to carry these prohibited items is not at all imaginary. Its located right in the second amendment...give it a read some time (I recognize that the airlines can place whatever restrictions they want on their service, but their service sure does seem to be becoming more and more federalized). Secondly, your analogy is flawed. You are quite correct that I have no right to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, nor do I have a right to swing my fist into your nose. Both these actions harm other individuals. My right to free speach exists so long as I don't use it to harm others (i.e. slander or shouting "fire"). In the same way my right to carry knives/guns/whatever I want exists only so long as I don't use IT to harm others. If I feel like it, I should be able to walk around with a sword strapped to my back as long as I don't threaten or harm anyone with it.
Safety Guy--well said and I couldn't agree more.