Ammo For Sale

« « Area man | Home | Rules 1 & 2 » »

How dare you point out our inadequacies

A pilot shows how dumb TSA and airline security is. They make flight crews go through the checkpoints but ground crews do not. He posts the videos online to show how dumb the rules are. And six armed men (federal air marshals and local deputies) raid his house, take his guns, and his state concealed carry permit. All for pointing out the .gov’s stupidity.

Mind you, this guy was licensed to carry a firearm on a plane.

Via Alan.

23 Responses to “How dare you point out our inadequacies”

  1. FatWhiteMan Says:

    How dare he cross master.

  2. bblain Says:

    Imagine if they had those Air Marshals actually, you know, flying on planes.

  3. John Smith. Says:

    This guy really annoys me. He is playing all cloak and dagger like the government does not know who he is… This guy is a whistleblower of the obvious. If you pay attention at just about any airport you can see the flaws in the system. We all know the system is ineffective but what he wants will just snarl traveling even more… I propose we have two different methods of airtravel… The I am cowering wimp that lets his children get molested flight… And the I don’t give a shit about terrorist flight. The I don’t give a shit flyer signs a waiver and walks right through the metal detectors toward the boarding area. The children molester flier walks into the loving hands of the TSA… Basically maximum security prison lockdown rules for one and minimum security country club for the other…

  4. Paul Says:

    And the Marshals ask… “Your papers please”.

    Just because the TSA is dumb does not mean they can’t be vindictive.

  5. Phelps Says:

    The funny part is he’s still allowed to fly the planes (aka World’s Biggest Cruise Missiles), complete with the crash ax right behind him.

    But he can’t fly with a pistol.

  6. Beaumont Says:

    In 2010 America, dissent is treason.

  7. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Deine Blauschein, bitte?

  8. ParatrooperJJ Says:

    I doubt he will be allowed to fly much longer.

  9. Nylarthotep Says:

    This guy really annoys me.

    Why does this guy annoy you John Smith? Because he points out clearly ignored security holes while we waltz through the security theater of the TSA? Then we get to watch the TSA intimidate and abuse someone that actually points out that they really don’t know what they are doing?

    He’s obviously not playing it “cloak and dagger” since the article clearly states the Air Marshals came to retrieve his guy and the local LEO took his carry permit. The interviews I’ve heard with him and his lawyer indicated that the Air Marshal service set up the meeting for the recovery of the gun. So at this point it isn’t at the point of conflict. And apparently since they didn’t arrest him, he hasn’t done anything illegal. Well until the TSA figures out some further way to intimidate him.

    I don’t understand your point that we can all see the flaws of the system and this guy is trying to snarl the system. If the flaws are so obvious why do they still exist? That would be in the realm of security that the TSA is supposed to be in charge of. You know instead of groping your 6 year old son.

    And as for your two methods of air travel, they both are still susceptible to the threat of the ground crews having open access without any real security checks.

  10. milquetoast Says:

    John Smith., I think the cloak and dagger is about preventing people from linking him with his airline. It’s to prevent a headline reading “Feds declare pilot a security risk but xxx airline lets him fly” and to protect his job.

  11. Lyle Says:

    “…raid his house, take his guns, and his state concealed carry permit.”

    Now who are the terrorists?

  12. John Smith. Says:

    There is a difference between seeing something and comprehending what you are seeing. I have seen these very same grounds crews coming in and out of card secured systems at LAS,SAN,ATL,ORD,BOS,BNA and DFW. I have even seen the axe improperly stowed in the drink storage cabinet on an embraer… The problem with pointing out holes on an obviously flawed system is that the same flawed processes will come together to fix them… Hence making the problems worse than they were before. You tell me.. Is banning insulated cups going to save a single life?? That is the flawed system fixing holes… If you work for a system for years on end knowing it is flawed then you are a part of the problem no the solution. These holes in the system that the pilot is so thoughtfully representing are ones that without their existence make working and loading on the tarmac a pain in the ass. I prefer to not go around making other peoples jobs harder by pointing out the things because I am dissatisfied with the rules of my voluntarily chosen job….If you support correcting the hole but use the flawed system to fix it ;have you really done a thing but make it worse??? Why are the grounds crews suddenly a threat but had not been before now??? And if they were a threat why was it not fixed?? The reason is that there was never a threat to begin with much less now….

  13. John Smith. Says:

    Or more simply put. If you believe the ground crews are a problem then you believe in the TSA system as a whole… You cannot go around saying they go to far but they also do not go far enough…

  14. Jerry Says:

    Ronaldus Magnus kicked it off. He fired the people who were holding the ‘public’ hostage.

  15. Laughingdog Says:

    “You cannot go around saying they go to far but they also do not go far enough…”

    Actually, you can do that exact thing and be perfectly logical doing so. They go too far. Yet, as far as they go, they still don’t go remotely far enough to actually do anything useful.

    Also, am I the only one that enjoys the irony of someone using the screen name “John Smith” complaining about someone else hiding their identity?

  16. John Smith. Says:

    Read the whole quote laughingdog…If you believe the ground crews are a problem then you believe in the TSA system as a whole… You cannot go around saying they go to far but they also do not go far enough… Apart you can apply it the way you did. Together not so much. As for internet names I do not use mine as a means to hide who I am because I fear for my job having a taste for the cloak and the dagger….

  17. Fûz Says:

    Where is the legal basis for taking the man’s CCW?

    It does not pertain to his duties as a pilot, or as an FFDO (I doubt that a CCW permit is needed to become an FFDO because so many pilots live in California, where CCW are virtually nonexistent).

    He wasn’t charged with a crime that would justify pulling the CCW. Was he accused of some disqualifying factor?

    Did the Air Marshals intimidate a Peace Officer into pulling the permit without cause?

  18. Kristopher Says:

    Fûz: He lives in California. A May issue state. The sheriff can pull his CCW because he detests the color of his eyes.

    John Smith: Most of the folks here are in favor of this model of airport security. We point out that they aren’t going far enough in hopes that people will realize that there is no such thing as 100% safety, and that you have to be responsible for your own well being.

  19. The Comedian Says:

    His website:

    http://www.patriotpilot.com/

  20. John Smith. Says:

    I agree that we have to be 100 percent responsible… When has a government plan ever gone the distance to help… Not a single case as far as I can ascertain.

  21. Laughingdog Says:

    John, trying to nuance yourself out of hypocrisy doesn’t make it cease to exist. But I’ll go with a global statement like yours.

    You can’t criticize someone hiding their identity when you do it yourself.

    And you also can’t overgeneralize something like the approach most of us have towards airport security and not expect the bulk of people reading your comments to see you for an idiot.

    The TSA goes too far, because they violate our liberties. But, despite how far they go, they still don’t go nearly far enough to actually be effective. Granted, the latter is a given, since it’s impossible for them to go far enough to be effective.

    “If you believe the ground crews are a problem then you believe in the TSA system as a whole…” Not a chance. I can believe all kinds of things are a possible threat, and still not see the TSA as a solution for anything (well, aside from creating more paths for federal spending). Your logic only applies if you believe the TSA is the only possible solution.

    When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

  22. dustydog Says:

    The underlying issue is many people working as ground crews are Muslims, were born outside the US, and openly sympathize with terrorists. Some folks would like to see their civil rights curtailed, but GWBush, Obama, and Napalitano would rather see another plane blow up instead.

  23. John Smith. Says:

    Laughing dog you are criticizing me for hiding my identity because I am criticizing someone for getting on national news but hiding there identity because something might happen… Is that Mr. laughingdog then??? You are doing the very same thing only without your victim getting on national news criticizing something that the terrorists have not thought of using until a certain useless person pointed it out…

    Then you go on to do exactly what you say I am doing.. When you describe my over generalization but go on to say the bulk of the readers think I am an idiot…. When one person speaks for the majority without knowing the majorities opinion that is the epitome of over generalization… Also mine examples are rather exact narrow generalizations seeing I say you can see the flaws if you look… Looking is not a very broad generalization….Plus I am saying even you can see them… Of course that last one may be a stretch…

    This means your first two answers were circular reasoning… You know pointing out hypocrisy by being a hypocrite… Or simply opening your eyes during a prayer then telling on a sibling for doing the same thing because you saw them while your eyes were open…. If you use the same logic to prove me wrong that I used to prove myself right but in so doing say the logic is flawed how can you justify anything seeing that you just disagreed with yourself??? In other words don’t say someone is wrong then go do the same thing yourself while continuing to say it is wrong… (Like me for instance. I do not go criticizing someone for doing the very same thing I am doing.#1 I am not a pilot thank god.. #2 I do not see the ground crews as a problem security wise.#3 I do not go on youtube complaining that I have too much security and they have too little.#4 I do not keep my identity secret to protect my self and company from public backlash from accusations of helping terrorists… That makes me very different from this man. The only thing we have similar is that we are both criticizing something….)

    The pilot in not calling for fixing the tsa. He is calling for MORE TSA security… You already state this is impossible(DUH!!) So that can only mean he wants more tsa security.. So how do you support the pilot who wants more tsa security but are against the TSA??? That would be like a vocal anti gunner owning a gun…. Barbara Boxer comes to mind….