-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
TSA notice given to me about a Civil Penalty
- Thread starter waveslayer
- Start date
Exactly wrong.
Life is dangerous. Always has been, always will be. Should we dictate that jumping off a more than 4 foot "drop" might cause injury, and thus is illegal? or worse yet that knives can cut things, so everyone must give up their knives because we need to "mitigate that danger".
I personally think that you are responsible for yourself (and your wife, kids, family and friends). The government has no right to determine what I can or can not do to/for myself. If I hurt someone else through my actions, yes, then and only then should "community" be my judge.
I felt safer getting on a plane when I could walk right on. If someone on a plane is going to try to take it over, why would I accept being completely disarmed before I got on. The thought that government is going to keep me safe is a fallacy.
Ask your best friend - "Will you wait for me to show up if something bad happens, you should not protect yourself, that's my job".
Ok, thanks[emoji4]The problem you are going to have is if you purchase anything "mil-spec" as these items are generally restricted for export outside of the US. One option would be to box items up and take them to the local DHL office and have them shipped home instead of taking them on the plane. I ordered a pair of boots last year from the UK and they got held up in customs and I had to pay 40 dollars for the "inspection" in order to get my stuff. The best answer would be not to purchase anything that is prohibited from export (it will be stated right on the package or item) and anything else should be able to be put in carry-on bags and you may have to make declarations when you get home. Customs Regulations & Rules for Denmark Travelers Hope this helps, I have several relatives living in Denmark so I need to get over there and meet them someday
I guess I'll box some things up and bring the rest in my luggage. I guess the retailer decides what is milspec and what isn't? As far as stocks go, it looks possible, but not for a LRA bipod[emoji50]
It's a great way to kill of exports[emoji53]
If you come here, be sure to do it in the summer. It's beautiful in the summer. ..rest of the year, not so much[emoji10]
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If we lived under your ideals the world would not be a good place. In fact you can find a place similar in solomia. In anarchy only the strong and rich have freedom
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Look around you. Only the rich and powerful have true freedom now. You and I cannot get away with theft, insider trading, carrying in non-carry states, or any other of the thousands of laws that are broken every day by the rich and powerful without consequence. You cannot even see what is right in front of you. YOU ARE NOT FREE!
That kind of freedom does not exist anywhere; and insisting on it is akin to demanding Utopia. Never was, never will be.
What we do have is free enough. So much about freedom depends upon the beholder, and the beholders do not think alike. The best anyone can do is always going to be a compromise in a REAL world.
Be happy for what you have. Do not lament for what you will never have.
Greg
What we do have is free enough. So much about freedom depends upon the beholder, and the beholders do not think alike. The best anyone can do is always going to be a compromise in a REAL world.
Be happy for what you have. Do not lament for what you will never have.
Greg
I would simply call them and ask them to amend the letter to correct reflect the dates and times and pay the fine. I would be polite and friendly and not start a pissing match with a faceless government agency with the power to stop you from using air travel.
Just saying.
Just saying.
I agree,
Something else to check on is to see if this is a scam? Scammers are doing all kinds of tricky things to get you to pay money.
If it is legit, they would have ticketed you right then and there. Coming back on you months later with nothing formal having been done at the time is suspicious.
In all if it is legit, I would recommend paying the $125 and leaving it at that. Provided of course, they document that the case is then settled.
False go to Somalia there is no law and no freedom except for the war lords. Anarchy is the precursor to totalitarianism. In anarchy only the strong have the power and eventually the strongest take charge and enslave everyone else. Without the law there is no freedom. Most of the anarchist seem to have no concept of just how valuable personal safety is. Its because most of them grew up in white suburbia and they benefit from living in a lawful society.
The government is the only organization able to pass and enforce laws. So yes that is the governments job. Personal safety in your own home is one thing but yours and my safety when we travel through pubic airports is another.
Pat
While the system is not perfect I see rich people going to jail when they break the law. True they have better lawers and sometimes get off. But that is a side effect of capitalism. Those with more money can buy a better defense. Its a necessary evil that i am willing to live with.
Yes I am free and so are you.
Pat
This is very true. Only when the law rules can freedom flourish. So we must be careful to preserve the rule of law by placing the LAW above government, in other words no one including government agents right up to and including the president of the United States are above the law. That why the process government follows is often more important than the results, because if people lose faith in the rule of law because of rogue government, then anarchy follows which is always quickly replaced by tyranny of the strong and ruthless over the weak, or a totalitarian government, or very rarely if the people are well led by principled moral men then a new rule of law may be established as was the case in the American Revolution.
I agree. We need laws against murder, theft, rape, etc... What we don't need is the government requiring us to wait a specified number of days to possess a handgun, or wear a seatbelt, or require a business owner to make his establishment a non-smoking zone, or not swim when the red flag is flying...
I have no problem with the government protecting society from morally corrupt; I'll protect myself from myself.
I agree, and we wouldn't have those intrusive laws on the books if the Constitution was strictly followed and government was held to the enumerated powers listed there, as was intended.
Wrong, laws only keep honest people honest. Look at criminals, do they care about laws. Do they go to a gun shop and do a background check? We all know what's right and what's wrong. We don't need laws to tell us murder, rape and robbery is bad or illegal.
Last edited:
Really, we need laws to tell us murder and rape are bad? Like I said before laws only keep honest people honest.
Preach on, Brother. Somewhere between the, "All laws are bad," and "Everything must be regulated for the good of the people," is a sweet spot. The framers found that spot, but we've spent the last two centuries trying to make it sugar free.
Wrong the law allows us to punish people who murder rape and steal. We also can keep them from hurting other people while they are locked up. Yes we do need laws and people to enforce them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your right their is a balance where that balance point is the great debate. Personally except for a few bad gun laws I think we have it pretty good
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So how effective were those laws if they were broken. Like I said before we all know what's right and wrong. No matter if there is a law in place or not. Bad people will ALWAYS do bad things in life.
I appreciate your sentiment here, but it is irrelevant to why we have law. It isn't to tell us what is right and wrong. We the people decide what is right and tell government what to do about it. We have law so that when someone does something wrong, we have a standard by which our civil society will judge behavior and a standard for the government authorities (to whom we the people delegate our power) to use to punish those people on our behalf.
Or maybe you'd like to live in a country where the government executes people for jaywalking or your neighbor is allowed to kill you if leaves from your yard blow into his.
Your point seems to be since laws don't prevent all crime its pointless to have laws. My contention is simple that laws allow us to punish and remove people from society after the fact so they are not able to harm anyone again in the future. Criminals have a tendency to do crimes over and over again until they are caught. In your world they would never face justice and there would be no justice for the victims. Again somewhere between a nanny state and anarchy like you see in the mad max movies exists.
Pat
Tell em you'll pay up when they quit letting ebola virus carriers fly all over to hell and gone.
G
Guest
Guest
While murder and rape in our current culture are clearly things that just about everyone would agree are bad, one would not have to go very far back in time here, or travel to another culture, to see that this isn't always the case.
For example, do you think it's "bad" to place a bounty on a race of people, providing a $200 reward for every one killed?
I would hope that you would. But there was a time in the nation's history when government actually provided that reward.
From "The Daily Republican", Winona, MN
What laws do is they define the collective acceptable standards of people who wish to live in harmony with each other, and they provide for management of those who would choose to defy that collective harmony.
Rape is common and accepted today in many cultures, as are many other forms of personal persecution, based on sexual, racial, and other differences. So, yes, we do need laws to tell us that rape, murder, and many other things are bad, because we've tried it the other way, and it's ugly.
Last edited:
I have said my peace on tyranny and government. I am glad there are a few who are like minded. Unfortunately we are not the future, but the sacrifice for the future of our children and grandchildren. I leave you with the wise words of a past president:
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." – Ronald Reagan
(If your pay is earned via the taxpayers, you are "the government.")
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." – Ronald Reagan
(If your pay is earned via the taxpayers, you are "the government.")
Last edited:
Everyone who votes is the government. We all have the ability to change the way things are every election cycle. So much better than the blood letting that happens in anarchy type environments like much of the 3rd world.
So in order for you to decide whether I'm "ok" you get to disregard:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is funny how you call anarchy when that is the supreme law of the land.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is funny how you call anarchy when that is the supreme law of the land.
We do not need laws to keep us safe on airplanes. Also, I don't travel through pubic airports. That's gross.
And, The Supreme court of the land has ruled before, that searches of that type are not unreasonable, if the intrusion is minimal and the risk is great.
But, you probably don't like that ruling so...TYRANNY!!
If you think you can get along in a society devoid of any regulations, or you think that that is what our founding father's had in mind, then you are kidding yourself.
G
Guest
Guest
The sore losers in American politics will always point to the goings on of the current powers and their "tyranny' as the beginning of the end of this "once great nation".
Funniest part is that the TSA wasn't granted all of this authority by the current powers. I guess some are just slow to react.
Funniest part is that the TSA wasn't granted all of this authority by the current powers. I guess some are just slow to react.
So I'm government because I get a disability check for being wounded in combat? Interesting.
P
So is it freedom to have to purchase a fishing permit to fish or a hunting permit to hunt. Doesn't sound like freedom to me. If you must ask permission to do something you ARENT free.
Now replace "war lord" with bureaucrat and the rich and powerful and you have America!
So is it freedom to have to purchase a fishing permit to fish or a hunting permit to hunt. Doesn't sound like freedom to me. If you must ask permission to do something you ARENT free.
Now replace "war lord" with bureaucrat and the rich and powerful and you have America!
Last edited:
While murder and rape in our current culture are clearly things that just about everyone would agree are bad, one would not have to go very far back in time here, or travel to another culture, to see that this isn't always the case.
For example, do you think it's "bad" to place a bounty on a race of people, providing a $200 reward for every one killed?
I would hope that you would. But there was a time in the nation's history when government actually provided that reward.
From "The Daily Republican", Winona, MN
What laws do is they define the collective acceptable standards of people who wish to live in harmony with each other, and they provide for management of those who would choose to defy that collective harmony.
Rape is common and accepted today in many cultures, as are many other forms of personal persecution, based on sexual, racial, and other differences. So, yes, we do need laws to tell us that rape, murder, and many other things are bad, because we've tried it the other way, and it's ugly.
Well with that mentality, then you are not a trust worthy person. If anyone needs a law to know or do right from wrong shouldn't be around others. Plain and simple.
I know I shouldnt murder or rape someone. I don't need a law to tell me I shouldnt do any of those things. Do we need a law stating I can fish or hunt a certain area? Do we need a law saying I can only have sex in a certain position?
Guess all those dead people who voted for all these elections are the government also? The system is flawed and only gets worse. The only way to stop the corruption at this point is to hit the "reset" button.
First, we fire every single politician in office as of now.
Second, we hold new elections and none of these positions are paid or have any benefits.
Third, if you are caught taking money from any organization you forfeit your position and sent to jail.
representing your state, in my opinion is an honor. You shouldn't need all these perks and special pays(welfare) and a retirement plan for life after only serving for a single term in order for you to do the job.
These days each politican should be made to wear the logos of the companies they take money and perks from. Then and only then will people begin to realize how corrupt they really are.
These are few laws that we "need" in my opinion. Just my .02
Last edited:
Please do go on and tell me how well those laws were followed that day.........
As I said before only law abiding people follow laws. Bad guys don't. You sound like Feinstein when she said " once the bad guys see that we banned guns, they will just turn theirs in". Go back to drinking the kool aid my friend.
Maybe you should have used a "Poll" as the thread starter. Save yourself the trouble of reading all the posts and tallying the Pay or "F-O" answers.
So your idea of what is acceptable behavior in a free society should be our standard? Or are you saying everyone decides for themselves what is acceptable?
You seem to be purposely ignoring what has been said several times...the law isn't there to guide your morality but to guide what we, the rest of society, should do when you break the commonly agreed to standards of behavior. Without the law, if your neighbors feel you have wronged them they could just band together and hang you. Or if they are really bad people maybe they torture you first. Or take you into slavery, etc etc.
It should be obvious to you that people don't agree on what is moral and acceptable behavior. So we formed a Constitution that created a government that performs certain tasks on our behalf, one of which is enforcing the will of the people on those who cross certain boundaries we have described as crime, a consensus arrived through an established representative process. Because we have not done our job as citizens, we have allowed the government to go beyond the Constitution and define crime more broadly than we should have. No doubt about that, the founders would be appalled at a federal government that attempts to control the kind of light bulb you use. However, that doesn't mean the concept of the rule of law is wrong-quite the opposite. The wrong is in the current reach of the law, not the concept of law itself.
As an analogy, a little food is good for the stomach. But if someone becomes a glutton and dies of gross obesity and diabetes that does not mean the concept of eating food is bad. Eating food, like every human endeavor, requires personal discipline and responsibility to get the desired results. It is the same with the rule of law.
This thread illustrates the truth of a point I have been trying to make for a long time here and elsewhere; the fate of our entire civil society rests solely on the perception of the rule of law vice the rule of man. You can see in this thread the obvious and dangerous results of government overreach because it damages belief in the rule of law, resulting in people who, having lost trust in the civil process, will abandon it and resort to their own devices. No society will survive once this belief becomes prevalent and common.
The critical damage isn't that a free man can't choose his own lightbulb or has to use a 7 rd magazine, the critical damage is that the man no longer respects or feels loyalty to a government that is supposed to respect the Constitution. The seeds of anarchy are planted and watered with every unjust usurpation of his free will until the fateful day in which the man feels he must abandon the social contract and civil war springs forth. It is a law of human nature, repeated millions of times in human history. The process is as reliable as gravity, and we ignore the reality of it at our peril just as the fool who ignores gravity.
That's why the rule of law matters in small things as well as large. That's why the founders created a blueprint for our government that placed so much restraint on government. They understood that so much freedom would have costs associated with it, but they recognized that the far greater danger would be to create a government that would abuse the people's patience, damage the rule of law, and result in the collapse of civil society in anarchy and the tyranny of the inevitable violence and injustice that follows.
Last edited:
Are you f'ing serious? VA disability is a BENEFIT not "pay", as stipulated in the contract you (and I, as well as millions of others) signed. That is why it is not taxed.
Get a clue!
What did anyone expect from the "Security Force" in charge at the time. Mimimum wage employees, often newly arrive immigrants who hadn't had English rise to even a "second language" yet, all wearing a "one size fits all" shirt with a contractor's logo on it. I'm surprised that someone wasn't able to carry a small nuclear device aboard a plane back then.
Laws only work as well as society is willing to enforce them. As long as they allow them to be selectively enforced or turn the enforcement over to the "Lowest Bidder" we'll just continue to see more laws added with the excuse that the ones we have aren't working.
Roger that, just checking. Thanks for clarifying your POV. I rarely have a clue, especially before noon.
hmmmmm..... No pay or benefits..... I wonder what type of person we'd have in office under those conditions...
Many of you are trying to make the argument that everyone has common sense. The one thing about common sense is that it's not common so laws are also used to protect people from their own stupidity. Ever wonder why the car ad that has the car jumping off a cliff in Europe and driving under the ocean to the United States is required to have a "Do not attempt" warning, because some ass hat out there might drive the car into the water and then try to sue because he was not able to act out a scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me". Might sound like common sense to many but you would be surprised how dim a large part of the population is in this country.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Similar threads
